← 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

Madasu Rambabu, Uppugundur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

ITA 242/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

gathered by him in the normal course of his business had not been assailed further by the Revenue by carrying the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the same attained finality. 17. Controversy involved in the present case, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, boils down

Madasu Rambabu, Uppugundur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

ITA 241/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

gathered by him in the normal course of his business had not been assailed further by the Revenue by carrying the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the same attained finality. 17. Controversy involved in the present case, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, boils down

Bimal Kumar Drolia, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 347/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147(6)Section 148Section 250Section 34

dated 22.12.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, dated 10.11.2016. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 347/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bimal Kumar Drolia. “1. Ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] has erred ... order dated 22.12.2023, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that

Mohammed Sajid Khan, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2442/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the ld. A.O had wrongly drafted the order by making addition of cash deposited even though ... appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Further, aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 2442/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mohammed Sajid Khan. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with

N Sumathi Kumar HUF, Chengalpattu vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

ITA 40/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Smt. N. Sumathi Kumar, Huf, The Dcit, 56, High Road, Chengalpattu, Central Circle-3(3), Kancheepuram-603 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaahn 0177 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.330/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)

gram for valuation of excess stock to have been correctly adopted. Hence, the order of ld.CIT(A) be upheld and the Assessee's appeal before the Tribunal be dismissed. 12. Regarding, department appeal on the taxability of excess stock found as unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act, as against that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. N Sumathi Kumar, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

ITA 330/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Smt. N. Sumathi Kumar, Huf, The Dcit, 56, High Road, Chengalpattu, Central Circle-3(3), Kancheepuram-603 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaahn 0177 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.330/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)

gram for valuation of excess stock to have been correctly adopted. Hence, the order of ld.CIT(A) be upheld and the Assessee's appeal before the Tribunal be dismissed. 12. Regarding, department appeal on the taxability of excess stock found as unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act, as against that

Shirdisai Brothers Charitable Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1481/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1481/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.G.Sudhakar, Advocate(Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 52 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the delay has occurred on account of genuine misunderstanding of the appeal filing dates

Kalpana Ravikumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(40, Chennai

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

ITA 1320/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kalpana Ravikumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 78, Block 2, 2Nd Floor, Non Corporate Ward 8(4), Bbc City Paark, No. 76, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chinna Porur, Chennai 600 116. [Pan:Aiupr6455L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 372 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit As 2

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 250Section 54

26AS and adopt the figure of interest and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/25 7. The ld. AR Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate drew our attention to second para of the assessment order and submits

Subbiah Subramani Venkatesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1316/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1316/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Subbiah Subramani Venkatesh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 157, New No. 14, Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Sanjeevarayan Koil Street, West Chennai. Mambalam, Chennai 600 021. [Pan:Avups4151M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

absence of any written submissions or documentary evidences in support of the grounds of appeal. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 I.T.A. No.1316/Chny/25 4. The ld. AR Shri Hitesh, C.A. drew our attention to the statement of facts given in Form 35 and submits

Virutcham Micro Finance Ltd., Madurai vs. ITO, Corp. Circle.2, Madurai

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

ITA 1313/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1313/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Virutcham Micro Finance Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of C-50, Gurudev Nagar, Avaniyapuram Income Tax, Bypass Road, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aaccv9529Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 16.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. Further, On Perusal Of The Record, We Find That The Notice Issued On 18.06.2025 Returned

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 115JSection 4Section 68

submitted any reply except for seeking adjournment even after 5 years of filing the appeal. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has contended that the addition

Lakshmanan, Karthik vs. Assistant Commissioner, Salem

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

ITA 1309/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1309/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Lakshmanan Karthik, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5-82/Na, South Veethi, Income Tax, Thammampatty Main Road, Ward 1 Attur T.K., Salem 636 107. Salem. [Pan:Dpspk6889B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 6 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit As Well As Medical Reports, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are 2

For Appellant: Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 40

rejecting the submissions of the assessee as well as evidence placed 3 I.T.A. No.1309/Chny/25 on record. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, CA submits that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not maintainable. She drew

M/S. Sri Ghatikachala Kshetra Bhakthajana Kainkariya Samajam, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA

ITA 1295/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1294/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1295/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: - M/S. Sri Ghatikachala Kshetra The Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhakthajana Kainkariya Samajam, (Exemptions), No.20, Swamy Apartments, Chennai. Crr Puram, 2Nd Phase, Ganapathiraj Nagar Extn., Virugambakkam, Chennai-600 092. [Pan: Aacts5551L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

/Chny/2025 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 217 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is the public charitable trust providing relief to the poor in terms of food, knowledge

M/S. Sri Ghatikachala Kshetra Bhakthajana Kainkariya Samajam, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA

ITA 1294/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1294/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: - आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1295/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: - M/S. Sri Ghatikachala Kshetra The Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhakthajana Kainkariya Samajam, (Exemptions), No.20, Swamy Apartments, Chennai. Crr Puram, 2Nd Phase, Ganapathiraj Nagar Extn., Virugambakkam, Chennai-600 092. [Pan: Aacts5551L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

/Chny/2025 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 217 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is the public charitable trust providing relief to the poor in terms of food, knowledge

Arangham Turst, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3033/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3033/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: - Arangham Trust, The Commissioner Of Income Tax New No.10, Old No.20, Cenotaph Ii (Exemptions), Lane, Teynampet, Chennai Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aaata3616Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate(Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate(virtual)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12A

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 1216 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse was under misplaced belief of the timelines of filing of the appeal

Vadivel Muthukrishnan, Pollachi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Pollachi, Pollachi-Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2701/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Vadivel Muthukrishnan, The Income Tax Officer, No.27, Kattabomman Street, Ward-2, Pollachi, Coimbatore, Pollachi Tamil Nadu-642 001. [Pan: Aklpm8847L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 69A

No.2701 /Chny/2024 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 03 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the delay was on account of some misunderstanding of the time barring dates. The assesse submitted

Sohag Dilip Kapadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Piramal Chambers

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

appeal before the CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and is wholly dependent on her consultant for handling the income

Snehasadan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2525/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

file the Form-10B within the specified due dates or get the delay condoned from CIT(E). Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee is a registered Trust since 1963 under

Nirmala Nawal Phatarphekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2516/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250

legal ground which has been raised first time before the Tribunal, therefore objected for raising the legal ground first time in the appeal before the Tribunal. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the intimation order dated 04.04.2019 passed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the Assistant Director ... intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act suffers from gross violation of rules of natural justice.” Thus while allowing the appeal, the Delhi Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim of carry forward of long term capital loss. 13.It is to be noticed that

Mr. Durgesh Ramashankar Rai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2351/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

income of the assessee. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a salaried person and has paid a deposit

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1828/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrihdfc Bank Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of (As Successor To Housing Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai Development Corporation Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan Finance Limited), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Hdfc Bank House, Corporate Tax Department, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaach2702H Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)

this ground was raised originally in the appeal filed against “order giving effect” assessment made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the “order giving effect” assessment in ITA No.4217/Mum/2023 wherein the issue contested is in respect of expenditure incurred on ESOS. The scope