← 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

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 784/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

with ITA No. 780 to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without condoning the delay

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 783/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

with ITA No. 780 to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without condoning the delay

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 782/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

with ITA No. 780 to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without condoning the delay

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 781/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

with ITA No. 780 to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without condoning the delay

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 780/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

with ITA No. 780 to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without condoning the delay

Drdo Range Educational Society Chandipur, Chandipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 772/CTK/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nanak Fogla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

assessee have been filed belatedly. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... filing both the appeals before the Tribunal and both appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.772/CTK/2025 filed for A.Y.2015-2016, wherein it was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal against the order u/s.143

Drdo Range Educational Society Chandipur, Baleswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 771/CTK/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nanak Fogla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

assessee have been filed belatedly. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... filing both the appeals before the Tribunal and both appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.772/CTK/2025 filed for A.Y.2015-2016, wherein it was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal against the order u/s.143

Panchayat Samiti Danagadi, Jajpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Japjpur Ward, Jajpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 762/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing along with ITA No.762/CTK/2025. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter

Seikh Sultan Noor, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

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

ITA 752/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.752/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Seikh Sultan Noor Vs Ito, Bhadrak Ward, At/P.O/P.S:- Kacheri Bazar, Bhadrak Dist:-Bhadrak, 756100 Pan No. : Acipn 8070 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Narahari Swain, Advs राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date : 18/02/2026 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10462/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Narahari Swain, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra and Shri Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr DR

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did 2 not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter

Panchayat Samiti Danagadi, Jajpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS, Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 747/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing along with ITA No.762/CTK/2025. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter

Sarada Buildcon Private Limited, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 728/CTK/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.728/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007) Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Sarada Buildcon Private Limited, At -Plot No.1425, Bank Street, Jajpur Road, Jajpur-755019 Pan No. :Aahcs 7412 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Narahari Swain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 13 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessment Order Is An Ex- Parte Order. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay Of 3887 Days. It Was Submission That The Assesses’S

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Narahari Swain, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessment order is an ex- parte order. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay

Tarashankar Das Reprsented Through His Legal Heir Kartik Chandra Das, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 556/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.556/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Vs Ito Ward-1, Baripada Tarashankar Das Represented Through His Legal Heir Kartik Chandra Das, At-Ward No.10, Baripada, Lalbazar, Baripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj-757001 Pan No. :Acopd 0121 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 08.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 15 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored

Nimmagadda Gopichand, Vijayawada vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

ITA 743/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

upheld the order of the A.O under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 17.12.2019, carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which vide its order passed in ITA No. 329 /Viz/2025 dated 06.02.2025 had upheld the additions made by the A.O and dismissed the appeal. 8. Thereafter ... adjudicating the “Ground No. 2(i)” and “Ground No. 3”, which had inadvertently remained omitted to be adjudicated while disposing of the appeal. Ostensibly, the Tribunal vide its aforesaid order had directed the AO to restrict the tax liability on the impugned addition made by him under section

Audrey Bernice Roy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

appeal is dismissed as not admitted.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Page. No 8 I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy 5. I have heard the Learned authorised representatives of both parties and perused the orders

Shivani Enterprises, Pune vs. ITO Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1871/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1871/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shivani Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Western India House 587, Ward-14(1), Pune 588, Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411037 Maharashtra Pan : Acffs4711D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 401 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay and relevant contents are reproduced below: “11. Appellant was not subjected to any scrutiny / income

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

taking the N.P. rate of 8%. The ground no. 10 raised by the appellant is PARTLY ALLOWED.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO - Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2339/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

taking the N.P. rate of 8%. The ground no. 10 raised by the appellant is PARTLY ALLOWED.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

taking the N.P. rate of 8%. The ground no. 10 raised by the appellant is PARTLY ALLOWED.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Srinivasa Reddy Yeturu, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1898/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Srinivasa Reddy Yeturu, Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aalpy0486H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Ashuthosh Pradhan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Which Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 11, Hyderabad, Dated 01/10/2025, For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashuthosh Pradhan, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 69ASection 80DSection 80E

sustained addition of Rs. 60,000/- 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A, referring to the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee and more particularly, ground no.2

Exel Rubber Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1895/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Dated 09/10/2025 For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 250

merits and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A, referring to the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee and more particularly