← 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

Randheer Singh, Faizabad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 218/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Randheer Singh V. The Assessment Unit Nara Pura Bazar Income Tax Department Faizabad Nfac, Delhi Tan/Pan:Gpfps1546D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 69A

appeal. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 224 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 12.03.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of Shri ... along with relevant documents and appeal fee were handed over to Shri Ajay Kumar Dubey, Advocate on 30.05.2024 for filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. However, the Advocate had failed to file the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time due to rush of work

Satya Kumar Darbari, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT Range-4, Lucknow

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

ITA 227/LKW/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Satya Kumar Darbari V. The Dcit 381, Rajendra Nagar Range 4 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Agtpd4584H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that there is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 15.07.2023, supported by Medical Certificate, for condonation of delay, stating therein that the assessee was suffering from ... from 04.06.2023 to 11.07.2023 and was under treatment and that after his recovery from fever, he immediately contacted his Counsel for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It has been prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not ITA No.227/LKW/2023 Page 5 of 6 deliberate

Bipinkumar Mansukhbhai Detroja, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalbipinkumar Mansukhbhai Detroja, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 420 C/O Ankita Tiles, Ward-4(2)(1), Opp. Bindal Oil Mil,Gota Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382481. [Pan :Ajgpd0402 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Bp Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We find that the total cash deposits were to the tune of Rs.5,76,000/-. Assessee is in the business of mineral

Pravinbhai Jethabhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalpravinbhai Jethabhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Teen Khadki, Nr. Bar Ni Khadki, Ward-5, Village-Nar, Tal. Petlad, Nandiad. Kheda-388150. [Pan :Biqpp9029 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jamin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Bp Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short), U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Jamin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

after allowing the standard deduction of Rs.50,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. AR contended that no valid notice u/s 143(2) was served before finalization

Shri Dasalad Gyati Samast Kalol, Panchmahal vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 915/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri SN Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

assessee-trust failed to submit the substantial documentary evidences. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Shri Dasalad Gyati Samast Kalol Vs. CIT Asst. Year : N.A - 3– 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time

Heena Parthiv Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/the ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2073/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalheena Parthiv Thakkar, Vs. Adit, Cpc, 38, Tulsi Co-Op. Hos. Soc. Ltd. Bengaluru/ Sagar Bungalow, Gulab Tower Income Tax Officer, Road, Sola Road, Thaltej, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad-380061. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

infirmity in the AO's order.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal 5. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, which is engaged in manufacturing plastic products, filed the return of income declaring total income

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

ITA 318/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR and Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153A(1)(b)

present assessment year was made in respect of the directions issued by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order u/s 263, wherein the Tribunal allowed set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of years prior to AY 2002-03 against income

Chandrashekhar Bagade, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 958/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandrashekhar Bagade Ito, Ward 5(1), Pune F 5, Windmill Village, Vs. Opp Ambrosiya, Paud Road, Pune – 411021 Pan: Amxpb8229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 3. There is a delay of 609 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed the condonation application along with an affidavit 2 requesting for condonation of delay. The contents of the affidavit filed along with ... penalty. Thereafter, he took the necessary steps for filing of the appeal. He accordingly submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned and the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be deleted

Shri Narshinha Mandir Trust, Nashik vs. CIT (Exemp), Pune

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

ITA 948/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Narshinha Mandir Trust Cit(Exemption), Pune Oppo. Jain Mandir Sinnar, Sinnar, Vs. Nashik – 422013 Pan: Aagts9411F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 36ASection 36A(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected.” 4 3. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT Exemption has erred

Century Rayon Education Society, Pune vs. CIT (Exemp), Pune

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

ITA 947/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.M. BandiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 13(3)Section 36ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee in response to the initial

Kalyan Charity Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemp), Pune

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

ITA 946/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.M. BandiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee in response to the initial

Shree Gomtesh Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5., Sangli

ITA 926/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol R KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ms
Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

appeal in absence of any supporting documents. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to miscommunication by the concerned employee of the assessee, there ... upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 12. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

Shree Gomtesh Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 925/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol R KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ms
Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

appeal in absence of any supporting documents. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to miscommunication by the concerned employee of the assessee, there ... upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 12. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

Shree Gomtesh Nagari Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 924/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amol R KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ms
Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

appeal in absence of any supporting documents. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to miscommunication by the concerned employee of the assessee, there ... upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 12. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

Mtw Mission 2K34 Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 904/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.904/Pun/2025 Mtw Mission 2K34 Foundation, Cit (Exemption), Pune S. No. 554/2, Pl 18A, Fl 402, Nancy Palace, Gidney Park, Vs. Gultekadi, Market Yard, Pune-411037 Pan : Aapcm7688C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jasraj Sutar Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2025 Date Of 31-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 16.11.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Vi)-Item(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Jasraj SutarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that most of the required documents were submitted in response

Niramala Vijay and Priya Darekar Foundation, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 893/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.893/Pun/2025 Nirmala Vijay & Priya Darekar Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune Ground Floor/1St Floor, Plot No. 7, Hadapsar S.O., Pune-411028 Vs. Pan : Aadtn5633P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 31-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 09.03.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 135 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing ... 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that most of the required documents were submitted in response

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned Addl. CIT(A) erred in holding that

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned Addl. CIT(A) erred in holding that

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned Addl. CIT(A) erred in holding that

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned Addl. CIT(A) erred in holding that