← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Nagpur District Shala Karmachari Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (4), Nagpur

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 775/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri K P Dewani (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR (through virtual)
Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without considering the submissions made by assessee and judgements relied upon. 2. The addition

Nagpur District Shala Karmachari Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (4), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 774/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri K P Dewani (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR
Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 5. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without considering the submissions made by assessee and judgements relied upon. 2. The addition

Arthakalash Magasvargiya Karmachari Sahakari Path Swanstha Limited, Dhamangaon vs. ITO Ward-1, Amravati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 756/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DembleFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filing of the same by observing as under: 3 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order framed

Srilakshmi Devireddy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

ITA 428/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the Ld. Authorised representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available ... injury suffered by the assessee followed by the dengue fever, which, she claims had resulted in the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. I find that the assessee had participated in the proceedings before the authorities below and is not a habitual non-compliant of the statutory

Tirumala Rao Battu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 312/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

said count itself, dismissed the appeal. 4. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA, Learned Authorised Representative (for short 5. “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that

Kamlesh Motwani, Bhopal vs. DCIT-2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 518/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Shi Bara Bavan Modh Brahman Vidhyotejak Trust Mandal, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

approval was rejected and the provisional approval was cancelled. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we note that notices were issued from time to time calling for details and documents. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) rejected

Show Humanity Trust, Patan vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

requisite details/explanation and to establish the genuineness of its activities. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called

Show Humanity Trust, Patan vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

requisite details/explanation and to establish the genuineness of its activities. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called

Shri Swaminarayan Siddhant Sajivan Mandal Gavada, Vijapur vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2508/AHD/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H V Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR
Section 12A

proviso to section 12AB (1)(b)(ii) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 6680/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

learned CIT(A) in quantum proceedings is dated 27.10.2022 and was admittedly received by the assessee on the same date. The appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 26.12.2022. However, the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 1023 days. 3. The assessee ... assessee, considering the quantum of tax involved and with a view to avoid protracted and costly litigation, consciously chose not to pursue further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It is further stated that subsequently penalty proceedings under section 270A were initiated, penalty of Rs. 6,85,238/- was levied vide

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6498/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

learned CIT(A) in quantum proceedings is dated 27.10.2022 and was admittedly received by the assessee on the same date. The appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 26.12.2022. However, the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 1023 days. 3. The assessee ... assessee, considering the quantum of tax involved and with a view to avoid protracted and costly litigation, consciously chose not to pursue further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It is further stated that subsequently penalty proceedings under section 270A were initiated, penalty of Rs. 6,85,238/- was levied vide

DCIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3995/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

Section 14A

issues, partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the Revenue as well as assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee's Appeal 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that, in so far as the appeal filed by assessee is concerned

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3432/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

Section 14A

issues, partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the Revenue as well as assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee's Appeal 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that, in so far as the appeal filed by assessee is concerned

Kanahiya Lal Politechnic, Roorkee vs. ITO, W-1(3)(2), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Kanahiya Lal Polytechnic Vs Nfac, Delhi/ Dehradun Road, Roorkee Ito, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Uttarakhand-247667 Lines, Roorkee, Pan-Aabak4938M Uttarakhand--247667 Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tilak Raj, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/110417665 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 22.03.2023, On The Basis Of Information Available With The Department That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Inr 1,39,81,145/- In Union Bank Of India During The Financial Year 2015-16. The Assessee Society Has Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. Thereafter, Statutory Notices Were Issued From Time To Time To Provide The Assessee An Opportunity To Substantiate Its Claim By Submission Of Documentary Evidences. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Despite Of Many Opportunities, Assessee Failed To File Any Reply Or Documentary Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. In Absence Of Information & Documentary Evidence Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,86,27,053/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Section 10Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

vide order dated 07.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the appellate order as well as assessment order are against Law and facts of the case

M/S A-One Enterprises, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S A-One Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, 135/61 East Patel Nagar, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. Vs. Pan-Aanfa5222D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short], Dated 25.08.2025 In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Dehradun/10654/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The Act’ In Short) Dated 16.12.2029 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,08,939/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 16.12.2019 At A Total Income Of Rs.51,79,869/- By Making Additions Of Rs.48,49,500/- U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs.21,430/- U/S 41(1) Of The Act. A-One Enterprises Vs. Ito 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Partly Allowed The Appeal By Allowing The Additions Of Rs.4,49,500/- After Verification By The Ao & Confirmed The Remaining Additions Of Rs. 44.00 Lacs Made U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs. 21,430/- Towards Bogus Liability.

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

made u/s 68 of the Act and Rs. 21,430/- towards bogus liability. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal. 1. That the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Shiv Ratan Education Society, Haridwar vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 9

sought to be evaded which penalty stood confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the penalty order, it is observed that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Seabird Exploration Fz-Llc, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

deleted the penalty and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Income Tax Officer, Dehradun vs. Rakesh Mohan Verma, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito Vs Rakesh Mohan Verma Ward-1(1)(3) 144, Neshvilla Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 13 A, Subhhash Road, 248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Abbpvcv4728J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Amit Arora, Ca & Shri Vishal Mishra, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Dehradun/10729/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income 10,94,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Issue “Large Cash Deposits Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.08.2018, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Issued From Time To Time. In Response, The Assessee Filed Replies & Produced All The Information & Supporting Documentary Evidences For Examination. The Ao Vide Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,53,25,642/- Wherein Addition Of Inr 69,81,000/- Is Made As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Towards The Bank Deposits & Further Inr 9,60,568/- Added As Unexplained Income Being Difference Between Deposits & Income Declared. Further An Addition Of Inr 62,89,172/- Is Made As One Fourth Payments Against Loan Repayment Of Rs.251,56,689/- Repaid From Undisclosed Sources U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

vide order dated 15.05.2024, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) was justified to cancel

M/S. Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

period of 12 months as against 10 months computed by AO. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s 263 of the Act passed