← 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 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Ramu Kanagarajan, Madurai

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

ITA 630/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.630/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ramu Kanagarajan, 5/B/1, Ismailpuram, 9Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Munichalai Road, Madurai 625 009. Madurai. [Pan: Aftpk9521N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ct Karuppan Chetty, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, By Filing Written Submissions Dated 14.07.2025, The Ld. Ar Shri Ct Karuppan Chetty, Ca Submits That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Of ₹.60,00,000/- Fixed By The Cbdt To File An Appeal By The Revenue Before The Tribunal As Per The Cbdt Circular No. 06/2024

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri CT Karuppan Chetty, CA

06/2024, 2 I.T.A. No.630/Chny/25 dated 17.09.2024. The ld. DR fairly conceded and being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.60,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable

Mohamed Ali Julaikabi, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2), Salem

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

ITA 1329/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1329/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mohamed Ali Julaikabi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 29/26, Dharmanagar Iii Cro Ward 1(2), Suramangalam, Salem 636 005. Salem. [Pan:Alopj8296J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venataraman, F.C.A. ""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 : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

days in filing the appeal, confirmed the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 I.T.A. No.1329/Chny/25 4. The ld. AR Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. drew our attention to the written submissions, wherein, the assessee furnished bifurcation

The Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1270/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1270/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Ward 2(4), New No. 487, Old No. 280, Tirupur. Chinnakadai Street, Opp. Arasamaram Stop, Dharapuram, Tiruppur 638 702. [Pan:Aabat8601Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

assessee has not furnished any reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, dismissed the appeal. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 I.T.A. No.1270/Chny/25 4. The ld. AR Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA submits that the CPC Bengaluru denied the claim of deduction under section

Ramesh Mangilal, Kolathur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 10(3), Nungambakkam

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

ITA 1050/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1050/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Mangilal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 8, Ayyappa Nagar Extension, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Vinayagapuram, Kolathur, Chennai. Chennai 600 099. [Pan:Agvpr4889B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Arihanth Jain, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Arihanth Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

which needs further reconciliation on behalf of 4 I.T.A. No.1050/Chny/25 the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri Arihanth Jain, C.A. drew our attention to the para 3 of the assessment order and submits that the assessee has furnished

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

dismissed in-limine. 6.8. Ground nos 7 and 8 are general in nature hence they are dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the receipts towards software licence by the assessee

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

dismissed in-limine. 6.8. Ground nos 7 and 8 are general in nature hence they are dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the receipts towards software licence by the assessee

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1404/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

dismissed in-limine. 6. 8. Ground nos 7 and 8 are general in nature hence they are dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the receipts towards software licence by the assessee

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

dismissed in-limine. 6. 8. Ground nos 7 and 8 are general in nature hence they are dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the receipts towards software licence by the assessee

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

deduction under section 36(1)(viia) the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Claim of beneficial rate of DTAA on tax paid on dividend – Ground No.1 ... ordinate Bench in assessee's own case on an identical issue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 28. The ld. DR submitted that the deduction under section 35D(2)(c)(iv) allows amortization

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

deduction under section 36(1)(viia) the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Claim of beneficial rate of DTAA on tax paid on dividend – Ground No.1 ... ordinate Bench in assessee's own case on an identical issue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 28. The ld. DR submitted that the deduction under section 35D(2)(c)(iv) allows amortization

Indusind Bank Ltd, 8Th Floor, Tower 1, One India Bulls Centre Delisle Road vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1841/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

deduction under section 36(1)(viia) the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Claim of beneficial rate of DTAA on tax paid on dividend – Ground No.1

Tejas Arvindkumar Desai, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 516/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Tejas Arvindkumar Desai Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 202/302, Guru Pushya Ward-1(3)(3), Surat, Income Tax Vs. Apartment, Maskati Plot, Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Parle Point, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipn 4702 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

addition of Rs.2,83,68,387/- made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant could not file details before AO due to change of address and also

Salim Muradali Virani, Silvassa vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

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

ITA 192/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Salim Muradali Virani Assistant Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ Shop No.3/6/8/12, Natwar Tax, Circle-Vapi, 8Th Floor, Fortune Vs. Apartment, Besides Dena Square-Ii, Above Tbz, Chala, Vapi- Bank, Amli, Silvassa-396 230 396 191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aeipv 2664 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

bank account. Hence, the addition of Rs.9,50,000/- made by the AO was upheld. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book including the statement recorded during survey u/s 133A of the Act, details of cash deposited

Baljit Singh, Rupnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ropar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 295/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Shri Baljit Singh, The Ito, Village Chalaki Tejpur, Ward 2(2), Vs Chamkaur Sahib, Ropar. Ropar (Punjab). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Fhnps5198J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Hearing : 15.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 16.10.2023 passed for assessment year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Panchkula

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

been applied and a suo motu disallowance had already been made. 6. Against the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the hearing before us, the Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that as per the binding

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd, Panchkula

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 665/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

been applied and a suo motu disallowance had already been made. 6. Against the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the hearing before us, the Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that as per the binding

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd, Panchkula

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 664/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

been applied and a suo motu disallowance had already been made. 6. Against the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the hearing before us, the Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that as per the binding

Ril Nmd Emp Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

disallowed and included in the income of the assessee. The addition of Rs.2114557 and Rs.90000 are confirmed." 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "On facts and in law, 1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred In confirming the addition

Animal Warriors Conservation Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 728/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 12A

Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 ITA.No.728/Hyd./2025 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(E), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri Jasraj R Shrishrimal, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the assessee society has been established with an avowed object

Jagadeswari Mahendran, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as ‘defective’

ITA 727/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 140Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148ASection 69

sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the very outset, it is noticed that, the Registry has issued ‘defect notice’ dated 15.05.2025 calling the assessee to rectify ... ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 (ii) Grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal not arising out of the order appealed against. (iii) Grounds of appeal filed before Tribunal not in conformity with Rule 8 of ITAT Rules, 1963. (iv) Memorandum of appeal not (property) signed/verified by the person authorized u/sec.140