← 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

Jainam Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 175/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Jainam Charitable Trust, Vs. The Cit (Exemption), 02, Samta Bunglows, Nehru Nagar Ahmedabad Dumas Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetj2070K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavits giving similar reasons for delays in filing both appeals before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the delay was primarily due to the assessee’s lack of knowledge about the provisions ... assessee was not covered by the Circular. Thereafter, upon receiving accurate advice on the scope of the Circular, the assessee immediately filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the delay in filling appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee

Jainam Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 174/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Jainam Charitable Trust, Vs. The Cit (Exemption), 02, Samta Bunglows, Nehru Nagar Ahmedabad Dumas Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetj2070K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavits giving similar reasons for delays in filing both appeals before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the delay was primarily due to the assessee’s lack of knowledge about the provisions ... assessee was not covered by the Circular. Thereafter, upon receiving accurate advice on the scope of the Circular, the assessee immediately filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the delay in filling appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee

Dharti Ekta Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 171/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharti Ekta Charitable Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), At & Post – Haripur, Tal – Uchchhal, Dist – Ahmedabad Tapi, Tapi – 394375, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetd5352L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Esmayeel Saherwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iii)

rejected and he also cancelled the provisional registration grated earlier. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a written submission containing 93 pages, which includes order of registration u/s 12AB in From

Jay Bhawani Mandhani Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Bhawani Mandhani Charitable Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), 209, 2Nd Floor, Sns Business Park, N/R Ahmedabad Subham Bungalow, U M Road, Vesu, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetj2496B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iii)

rejected and he also cancelled the provisional registration grated earlier. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book containing 27 pages, including copy of registration/approval u/s 12AB(1)(b), copy

Ramesh Poonamchand Bansal, Radha Krishna Textile Market vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 372/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramesh Poonamchand Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Radha Krishna Textile Ward-2(2)(4), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Market, Ring Road, Surat-395 Bhavan, Surat-395 001 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpb 6088 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

dismissed the ground raised by the appellant. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book and relied on some case laws. He submitted that

Anupam Shailesh Syal, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1281/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1281/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Anupam Shailesh Syal, Vs. Ito, 103, 104 Jay Vijay Park, Near Ward – 3(2)(6), Sardar Bridge, Adaja, Surat-395009 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Andps7890N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Hence, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 14.10.2024 without

Nazar Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250

Jain group. The appeal was dismissed by CIT(A). 4. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed factual and legal paper book and submitted that the reopening

Gauri Sagar Shivale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 101/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 2(47)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 80T

admitted. The appeal is in fructuous and is, therefore, dismissed. 7. The appeal is dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appeal filed

Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed vs. DCIT(E0 Circle, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2176/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2176/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Dcit, Exemption Circle, Mandal, Aurangabad. 0 Anand Bhavan, Nagar Road, At Post Tq Ashti, Dist. Beed- 414203. Pan : Aaets0130K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 115Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 3.2 It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Learned AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by ld.CIT(Appeal)[NFAC] is unjustified. Learned

Jain Foundation, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 336/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 12A

ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 2. At the very out, it is noticed that there is a delay of 89 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee drew the attention of the Bench with respect to the affidavit and petition filed by the Auditor ... looking after the affairs of the assessee trust and submitted that, there are genuine and bonafide reasons in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the concerned Auditor is assisting the assessee in the process of filing replies

Jain Foundation, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 335/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 12A

ITA.Nos.335 & 336/Hyd./2025 2. At the very out, it is noticed that there is a delay of 89 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee drew the attention of the Bench with respect to the affidavit and petition filed by the Auditor ... looking after the affairs of the assessee trust and submitted that, there are genuine and bonafide reasons in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the concerned Auditor is assisting the assessee in the process of filing replies

Balasubramanian Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(7), Chennai

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

condonation petition u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act. However, the condonation petition was rejected on 18.03.2025. Upon rejection, immediately the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal resulting in a delay of 360 days. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal ... years of processing of return. 5. Aggrieved by the FAA’s order passed u/s.250 of the Act, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.AR submitted that the issue in question is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

Dd122 Harur & Pr Patti Tk Ghss &Ghs Employees Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Society, Dharmapuri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1333/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Dd 122 Harur & Pr Patti Tk Ghss & The Ito, Ghs Employees Co-Op. Thrift & Ward-1, Credit Society, Dharmapuri. 1/16,Kanikaran Kottai, Sikkampatti V. Muthampatti Veppilaimithempatti, Dharmapuri-636 903. [Pan: Aadah 1485 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

confirmed the assessment and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. By filing copy of the application under section 119(2) of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Mumbai

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

ITA 2830/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2830/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2019-20) Deputy Commissioner V/S. Mehta Emporium Of Income Tax- Central बिधम Jewellers Circle 8(3), Mumbai 101, Mehta Arch, S.V. Road, Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Opp. Natraj Market, Malad Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (West), Mumbai 400064 Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfm2962N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Devendra Jain रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69A

same. Accordingly appeal on ground no 2 is ALLOWED.” Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A) the department has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ground No.1: Addition on account of unaccounted cash sales - Rs. 30,01,923/-. In this regard Ld. DR has made the following written

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are

ITA 2165/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) Dcit Cc – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम M/S. Tirupati Developers. 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri (W.), Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रति आपत्ति सं./ Co No. 110/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2165/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Tirupati Developers. V/S. Dcit Cc – 7(3), 419, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi बनाम Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Industrial Estate, New Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Link Road, Andheri (W.), Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeft6810B निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025 Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

allowed relief to the assessee on merits. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the department has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The sole substantive issue involved in this appeal is the addition of Rs. 6,93,00,000/- received as a loan from M/s. Satyam

Ny Green Energy Private Limited Formely Know As Sunkon Energy Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

upheld the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by the CPC. 5. Further aggrieved, the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the appellant filed a paper book including the ROI for AY 2021-22, Form-3CA/3CD, Form 10CCB, Form 29B, intimation

M/S Chhanabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 757/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 41(1)Section 68

different section i.e., Section 41(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book including written submissions before AO and CIT(A), ledger accounts of Nareshbhai S Patel & Maheshbhai Talashibhai

Sanjaykumar Arvindbhai Rupareliya L/H Arvindbhai Balubhai Rupareliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 1305/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 54B

result, the ground was dismissed by the CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book including the death certificate of Arvindbhai Balubhai Rupareliya, Form-7/12 of agricultural land ITA No.1305/SRT/2024/AY.15-16

Danda Nagendra Kumar, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 306/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 08/07/2025 seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee had explained the reasons that prevented him in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paras from the said affidavit are extracted as under:

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 928 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 08/07/2025 seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee had explained the reasons that prevented ... prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, we condone the delay of 928 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

Bala Krishna Traders, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: the Ld. Addl / JCIT (A), Agra. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the CPC was justified in restricting the TDS credit by applying Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:

Section 143(1)Section 194Q

Income Tax Rules, 1962. On being aggrieved, 3 Bala Krishna Traders, Guntur vs. ITO ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Viz/2025 the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also