“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

Lovely Das, Dumdum vs. Addl/JCIT, Nashik

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 291/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 291/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT ... vide order dated 02.01.2025, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that even though the income

Maisali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Contai, East Medinipore vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(2), Haldia

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

ITA 1666/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1666/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2018-2019) Maisali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Vs Adit, Cpc, Bangalore Samity Limited, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata-700069 Pan No. : Aadam 3104 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 1155 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That Sri Bhaskar Chandra Patra, Who Used To Look After The Income Tax Matter Of The Assessee Was Suffering From Jaundice & Remained Absent From Office Of The Assessee For A Long Time & When He Joined To Office, There Was Already Delay In Filing The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Before The Tribunal. The Contents Of The Affidavit Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR

that the reasons given in the affidavit for delay are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 6. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that

Bibhisanpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(4), Haldia/ Wbg-W-176(3), Haldia

ITA 1021/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

dated 12.09.2022. I.T.A. No.: 1021/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bibhisanpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the assessment is made without application of mind and is arbitrary and bad in law and infringing ... order dated 05.03.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were considered and the details and the paper book filed have been examined. It was pointed

Dhanasekaran Ramasamy, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 580/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. A Tamilamudan, CAFor Respondent: Mr. S.B. Rajendra Kumar

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

source for the balance investment and thus confirmed the addition to the tune of Rs. 42,35,000/-. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. There is a delay of 393 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed an affidavit seeking condonation ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

Hindustan Spimg Engineering Private Limited, Trichy vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Trichy

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1344/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ankita S. Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 43B

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) and that the CPC has rightly disallowed the same. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 373 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 370/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT

Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

them and the appeal before the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru was filed on 25/02/2025 with a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal of about 279 days. 20. It is submitted that as per the provisions of section 253 of the Act the Petitioner / Appellant ought

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 369/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT

Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

Ravinder, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4865/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), Delhi vs. Unison Hotels Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4471/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Unison Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Cirlce-25(1), Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, Delhi Vasant Kunj, Phase-2Nd, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacu0455C Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr.Adv., Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Akash Shukla, Adv. Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10712/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is Running Hotels. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 29.11.2014, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,21,35,196/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act On 01.09.2015. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time & Submissions Were Taken From The Assessee & Finally, The Assessment Was Completed At An Income Of Inr 30,38,83,394/- By Making Various Additions/Disallowances.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)

grant substantial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred

Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, -1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivnand Nagar, Wrs Colony, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Bjypk5882N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 260ASection 69

assessee, held that since sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee-appellant regarding the delay of 309 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, such delay is condoned. The relevant paras are extracted as follows: “5. We have heard learned Counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions

Sidharth Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society Limited, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 361/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sidharth Co-Operative Credit & Thrift Society Limited. Nayapara Titrudhi, Durg-490 020 (C.G.) Pan: Aagas2471Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 246ASection 250Section 260A

assessee, held that since sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee-appellant regarding the delay of 530 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, such delay is condoned. The relevant paras are extracted as follows: “10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 507/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

firm was neither brought to the notice of the Investigation team nor to the AO. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 8. It is submitted that the assessee firm was already dissolved much before the search conducted vide partnership dissolution deed

M/S Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 506/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 505/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Kk Tourist Home, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 504/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

National Womens Organisation, Pune vs. Commisioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 819/PUN/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.819/Pun/2025 National Womens Organisation, Cit (Exemption), Pune B 16, Shanti Vihar, Bhavdan, Pune-411021 Vs. Pan : Aaatn4537H अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shweta Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2025 Date Of 01-08-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2022 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 31.03.2022 In Form No. 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

For Appellant: Smt. Shweta JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 847 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. He submitted that the delay is not intentional and is a bonafide ... have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is substantial delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee stating the reason for such delay which are as under

Haragopal Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 816/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.816/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2025-26) M/S. Haragopal Educational Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Society, (Exemption), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aaath5611C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 01/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

accordance with the objects of the society. 4. Aggrieved by the said rejection order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had duly complied with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) during

Mahesh Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 813/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.813/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Afhpm6964R (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C.Raj Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 01/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 24.04.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri C.Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69C

Rs.1,62,345/- as suppressed gross profit. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that two principal issues are involved in the present appeal i.e. (a) Firstly

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 246/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.Ο No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2025 आदेश /O R D Er Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

FCCDs. Accordingly, Ground No.8 & 9 are partly allowed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as follows:- 1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is against the facts and circumstances

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 245/CHNY/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Pan: Aabch 8089G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca : 15.07.2025 : 01.08.2025 आदेश /Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C