← 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

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

revision order passed under section 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2024. Not satisfied with the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate submits that ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and requires no adjudication

Chetan Stone Crusher, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3007/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.

For Appellant: Shri C. S. BiradarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250

Year 2013- 2014, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 4. During the course of hearing Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the Assessee had taken

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1750/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

INR.3,98,72,258/- (which is being disputed by the Assessee as not received). 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. Ground No. 3 to 8 5. When the appeal was taken up for hearing

Prafulla Kumar Routray, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 175/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 54Section 69A

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.05.2020. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that order dated 08.01.2025 as passed under Section

Nisha Data Com Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

ITA 174/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

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. I.T.A. Nos.: 173/CTK/2025; AY 2011-12: “1. For that the addition of Rs.2

Nisha Data Com Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

ITA 173/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

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. I.T.A. Nos.: 173/CTK/2025; AY 2011-12: “1. For that the addition of Rs.2

Altret Industries Private Limited, Saiyedpura Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 855/SRT/2024[2016-201]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2016-201

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the deductees have received TDS certificate and they have claimed credit

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officxer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 818/SRT/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the deductees have received TDS certificate and they have claimed credit

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 816/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the deductees have received TDS certificate and they have claimed credit

Altret Industries Private Limited, Altret House, Saiyedpura vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 815/SRT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the deductees have received TDS certificate and they have claimed credit

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 814/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the deductees have received TDS certificate and they have claimed credit

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 810/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the deductees have received TDS certificate and they have claimed credit

Three Seasons Exim Limited, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 94/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.94/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2028-19 ) Three Season Exim Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Kakinada Ward-1 Pan:Aafct1751M Kakinada (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 291 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit Duly Signed By The Director Of The Assessee Company. The Learned Ar Of Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

29/02/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 291 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is also supported by an affidavit duly signed by the Director ... dismissed by the learned CIT (A) vide order dated 26/09/2023. Thereafter, the said associated concern engaged Shri GVN Hari, CA for filing the appeal before the Tribunal at Visakhapatnam Bench. During the discussion with Shri GVN Hari, the Director of the assessee company mentioned the appeal of the assessee pending

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 343/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

jurisdictional Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in 7. appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI is illegal, perverse, irregular, and improper

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 342/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

jurisdictional Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in 7. appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI is illegal, perverse, irregular, and improper

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 341/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

jurisdictional Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in 7. appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI is illegal, perverse, irregular, and improper

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 340/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

jurisdictional Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in 7. appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI is illegal, perverse, irregular, and improper

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 339/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

jurisdictional Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in 7. appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI is illegal, perverse, irregular, and improper

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 335/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

jurisdictional Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in 7. appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI is illegal, perverse, irregular, and improper

Bala Venkata Shiva Satya Naga Raju Mantena, Kalla Mandalam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 174/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bala Venkata Shiva Satya Naga Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Raju Mantena Bhimavaram 2-272/3, Malavani Thippa West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Kaluvapudi – 534236 Kalla Mandalam West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aocpm1009D] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 28 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.174/VIZ/2024 Bala Venkata Shiva Satya Naga Raju