← 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

Yogesh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(1), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5818/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalyogesh Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer, 201-202, 2Nd Floor, Ward-52(1), G-49, Laxmi Nagar, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aagpj1953P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, Adv. Department By Shri Abhishek Deval Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 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)-30, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’ In Short], In Appeal No. 10242/2018-19 Dated 16.05.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of Page 10 & 11 Of The Appellate Order, It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Provided Several Opportunities To The Assessee To File The Submissions In Support Of The Grounds Of Appeal Taken Before Him, However, Those Opportunities Were Not Availed By The Assessee And, Therefore, The Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Confirming The Additions Made By The Ao.

Section 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte confirming the additions made by the AO. 3. However, when the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal, it seems that he is vigilant to represent his case before the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make

Baljeet (Legal Heir of Late Sh. Dhanraj), Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Gurugram

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

ITA 5706/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

dismissed the appeal treated as time barred. Being aggrieved the order of the CIT(A), the legal heirs of the assessee file the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR has submitted that the sufficient cause has been shown for condonation the delay in filing the appeal but without

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Isoe Printpack Industries Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 735/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

balance addition of INR 2,48,57,356/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal were raised by both the parties:- ITA No.292/Del/2021 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] 1. “On the facts and circumstances

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Isoe Printpack Industries Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 734/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

balance addition of INR 2,48,57,356/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal were raised by both the parties:- ITA No.292/Del/2021 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] 1. “On the facts and circumstances

Isoe Printpack Industries Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 293/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

balance addition of INR 2,48,57,356/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal were raised by both the parties:- ITA No.292/Del/2021 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] 1. “On the facts and circumstances

Isoe Printpack Industries Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 292/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

balance addition of INR 2,48,57,356/-. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal were raised by both the parties:- ITA No.292/Del/2021 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] 1. “On the facts and circumstances

M/S Divyansh Infra Estate Pvt Ltd, Raipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1) Raipur, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.424/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Divyansh Infra Estate Private Limited House No.44/487, Arihant Niwas, Satti Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcd7801J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

discernible that the assessee was prevented by reasons beyond its control to comply with the period of limitation regarding filing of appeal before the Tribunal. There is no deliberate or malafide conduct emanating from the record nor the department could place on record any such material to suggest any such

J K Securites & Consultancy, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 119/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) J.K. Securities & Consultancy बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward- 301, Sagar Arcade, Gondal 1(2)(1), Rajkot, New Aaykar /Vs. Road, Rajkot-360 002 Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfj 6816 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Samar Bhuptani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee is barred by limitation by 411 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel explained the delay, stating that email id, given to the Department for sending notices, was belonging to Tax consultant. The Tax consultant ... passed ex- party by the learned CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee, ITA No. 119/RJT/2025 A.Y.16-17 J.K.Securities & Consultancy took immediate step to file the appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, in this process, because of the mistake of the tax consultant, such delay has occurred, which may be condoned, in the interest

Dalgir Kaur, Ghagga vs. ITO Ward Samana, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dalgir Kaur, बनाम The Ito, W/O Shri Sadhu Singh, Ward Samana, Vs Atala Road, Ward No.5, Patiala. Vpo – Ghagga. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Ddwpk1857D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate & Shri Armaan Cajla, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate and Shri Armaan Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 282Section 69A

Hearing : 07.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [in short ‘the CIT’] dated 26.11.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee

Janta Land Promoters Private Limited, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh, Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 907/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम M/S Janta Land Promoters Pvt.Ltd. The Ito, Sco 39-42, Sector 82, Ward 6(1), Vs Mohali. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aabcj3450D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

Hearing : 07.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [in short ‘the CIT’] dated 31.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The Registry

The Jangalberi Co-Operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd, Distt. Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Hamirpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1147/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Jangalberi Co-Operative Agri बनाम The Ito, Service Society Ltd., Hamirpur, Vs Vpo – Jangalberi, Teh - Sujanpur, (H.P.). Distt. – Hamirpur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aacat9859R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Alok Krishan, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Alok Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Hearing : 15.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [in short ‘the CIT’] dated 25.09.2024 passed for assessment year 2018-19. 2. Though

Aamod Cultural Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 816/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR
Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

remains un-complied and failed to submit substantial documentary evidences. 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

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Gupte Samadhi Vishvasta Mandal, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 918/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2025 Shri Gajanan Maharaj Gupte Cit (Exemptions), Pune Samadhi Vishvasta Mandal, House No. 669, Rahalkar Wada, Vs. Raviwar Peth Raviwar Karanja, Nashik-422001 Pan : Aadts2109R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of 30-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 132 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay which is mainly because of poor health condition of his consultant which has been ... read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) non-compliance to the second

Shri Ganga Godawari Mandir Sanstha, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 917/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 147 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay which is mainly because the notice(s) were not received by the assessee ... 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 the Ld. CIT(E) non-compliance to the notices

Gunj Foundation, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 914/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.914/Pun/2025 Gunj Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), Pune House No. 247, Block No. 56, Upnagar Colony, Nashik-422006 Vs. Pan : Aafag0861K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of 30-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 166 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 vide its response to the initial notice issued

Active Nashik Runners, Nashik vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 913/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 305 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay which is mainly because of technical issues on e-filing ... without going into the merits of the case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected

Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 873/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani Ito, Ward 1(1), Mahesh Traders C O Girls Fashion, Aurangabad Vs. 2/7/63, Tilak Path, Paithan Gate, Aurangabad- 431001 Pan: Aajpf4456C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Girish Ladda Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 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 the entire re- assessment proceedings are invalid on account of improper

Shri Kusumakar Achyut Shekatkar, Ahmednagar vs. I.to, Ward-2, Pune

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

ITA 244/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Kusumakar Achyut Shekatkar Ito, Ward 2, Ahmednagar House No.2, Fatima Housing Vs. Society Near Garden, Shrirampur, Ahmednagar – 413709 Pan: Ckjps9416B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69

appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that only three opportunities were granted

Bluebriage Sports Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 220/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.219 & 220/Pun/2025 Bluebrigade Sports Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune Shop No. 2, 1024/25, Shukrawar Peth, Tilak Road, Pune-411002 Vs. Pan : Aalcb7396Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2025 Date Of 30-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(E)"] has erred

Bluebriage Sports Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 219/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.219 & 220/Pun/2025 Bluebrigade Sports Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune Shop No. 2, 1024/25, Shukrawar Peth, Tilak Road, Pune-411002 Vs. Pan : Aalcb7396Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2025 Date Of 30-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(E)"] has erred