← 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

Venkatesh Gangakhedkar, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

ITA 901/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

search in the case of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar. 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, appeal before the Tribunal . 7. CA, C. Maheshwar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 425/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue has filed an affidavit, contending, inter alia, that the records were not 2 ITA.No.425/Hyd./2023 readily available with this office ... case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-2009. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may please be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. CA, K C Devadas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand

Pramode Kumar Himatsingka, L/H of Gita Devi Himatsingka (Since Deceased), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.737/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gita Devi Himatsingka (Since Deceased) Represented By L/H Pramode Kumar Himatsingka…………….………..……..…………………....Appellant 2C, Queens Park, Ballygunge, Kol-19. [Pan: Aarph3735N] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Acit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By Shri Pramod Kumar Himatsingka, Legal Heir Of Smt. Geeta Devi Himatsingka (Deceased), Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dated 19.02.2025, Confirming The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.10.2019, By The Cpc, Bangalore, For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.30,51,986/-. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act On 07.12.2018 & A Refund Of Rs.40,800/- Was Determined & Granted To The Assessee. Subsequently, The Cpc Passed A Rectification Order Dated 30.10.19 By

Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) where the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the order of CPC, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee’s main source of income of assessee

Tapan Kumar Shaw, Naihati vs. ITO, Ward 51(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1171/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Tapan Kr. Shaw………….………..……..…………………....Appellant 331, R.B. C Road, Gorifa, Naihati, W.B 743166 [Pan: Bvups8924F] Vs. Ito, Ward-51(3), Kolkata…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Acit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, Dated 08.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015–16 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,64,330. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Primarily Due To High Cash In Hand Shown In The Balance Sheet As Compared To The Preceding Year & Late Filing Of Return After 07.11.2016. The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading Business. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued. The Authorized Representative Appeared & Submitted Various Documents During Assessment Proceedings. During The Course Of Assessment, It Was

Section 143(3)Section 69

could not substantiate its claim with adequate documentation. The appeal was thus dismissed. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. At the time of hearing, it was submitted that there was a delay of 271 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

Greenearth Resources and Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. National E Assessment Centre, Kolkata

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

ITA 2128/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2128/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Greenearth Resources & Projects Ltd………………....Appellant Room No.866, Todi Corner, 8Th Floor, 32, Erza Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcn1393B] Vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Kolkata….…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 19.07.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 32 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record ... passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. It is noted from the record that even before this Tribunal, the assessee has not appeared on multiple occasions. The appeal has been

Ramakrishna Saroja, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 66/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Ramakrishna Saroja, Vs. Acit, No.807, 4Th Cross, 8Th Main Ii Block, Circle – 2(2)(1), Banashankari, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 050. Pan : Avups 0511 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. N. Vijaya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Vijaya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 54

purchase of new unit and he allowed the deduction claimed u/s 54 of the ACT. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that audited financial statement is enclosed at Paper Book Page

Veena Anand, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward No. 2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 583/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2022-23 Smt. Veena Anand, Vs. Acit, No.148, 6Th Main, Bagalur Cross, Yelahanka, Ward – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 063. Bangalore. Pan : Ahipv 3465 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)

complied with. Accordingly, for want of representation from the assessee’s side, appeal was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that notices issued by the CIT(A) might have got settled in the spam folder and hence

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

will not be applicable to the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and strongly contested that the AO has made addition under section

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

will not be applicable to the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and strongly contested that the AO has made addition under section

Natural Remedies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 266/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.5-B,Veerasandra Industrial Area, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aaacn 6990 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 43B

section 43B of the Act by the CPC and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that during the filing of income tax return, written information was submitted. It caused making of addition under section

Vijay Saklecha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 228/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Vijay Saklecha, Vs. Ito, No.194 Prop : Sambhav Steels & Infra Ward – 3(2)(3), Solutions, Jagajyothi Layout, Bangalore. Nagadevanahalli, Bangalore – 560 056. Pan : Aiapv 5386L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

assessee, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Page 3 of 5 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the books of accounts were got audited

Mustafa Asif Masood, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1116/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Mustafa Asif Masood, Vs. Ito, 145, 5Th Main, 7Th Sector, Hsr Layout, Ward – 4(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 034, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aorpm 0736 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Satish C, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 144Section 147Section 148

decided on the basis of the documents available and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that in Form No.35 it was specifically mentioned by the assessee for “whether notices / communications may be sent

Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souhardha Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Gangavathi vs. ITO Ward 1, Koppal

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

ITA 1115/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souharda Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Shop No.9 T.A.P.C.M.S Complex, Koppal. C.B.S Gunj Gangavathi Dt- Koppal 583227,Karnataka. Pan : Aalas 9104 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Deepak, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 40Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)

submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the Order of the CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the AO has wrongly noted that the assessee

Grandhi Buchi Sanyasi Raju, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1098/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Grandhi Buchi Sanyasi Raju, Vs. Dcit, 25/1, Skip House, Circle – 3(1)(2), Museum Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Agapg1105G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Jagadish Jogi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31 .07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Jagadish Jogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 90

filed written submissions which is incorporated by him but FTC was denied. 4. Aggrieved from the Order of the CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and filed written synopsis which is as under: Page

Writemen Media Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

report also and after considering the detail submissions and remand report he dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the Assessment Order passed by the AO under

Sujan Gopal Mukherji, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4149/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) on 06/09/2024. Thus, immediately thereafter, he took the necessary steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Having considered the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing

Surendra Chimandas Kanjani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41 (4), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4143/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(x)

appellant on all grounds raised. In the result, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf

Confidence Petroleum India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3699/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3699/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Confidence Petroleum V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of India Limited बिाम Income Tax -Circle B-13, Prabhu Krupa 1(2)(1), Mumbai Society, Nanda Patkar Pratishtha Bhavan, 3 Rd & 4Th Road, Santacruz West, Floors, 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400054 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacd3658C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri S.V. Joshi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr. स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 13.03.2025. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3699/Mum/2025 Ay 2020-21 Confidence Petroleum India Limited 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

Sahyadri Renewable Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3661/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3661/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sahyadri Renewable V/S. Income Tax Officer Energy Private बिाम Pratishtha Bhava, 3Rd & 4Th Limited. Floor, 101, M.K. Road, 303, Elphistan House, 17, Mumbai 400020 Marzaban Road, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics2640H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Agiwal (Virtually Appeared) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. DR
Section 250Section 37Section 57

proceeded to dismiss the appeal ex-parte. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is delayed by 509 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation explaining the circumstances ... well as passing of the appellate order. Subsequently, on coming to know about the dismissal of the first appeal, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which resulted in a delay of 509 days. It has been submitted that the delay being due to bonafide reasons, the same

Twinstar Jupiter Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3654/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Twinstar Jupiter Co- V/S. Income Tax Officer, Operative Hsg Soc Ltd बिाम Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai 41 Jupiter Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai Cufe Parade, Colaba, 400051 Mumbai 400005. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaabt0015E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Patil राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on merits. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Although several grounds have been taken, the assessee’s arguments are essentially on two grounds i.e. the claim of deduction u/s. 80P cannot