← 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

Income Tax Officer, Wanaparthy Block vs. Tamilnadu Special Police Employees Cooperative, Tsp Camp

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:363/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Tamilnadu Special Police Non-Corporate Ward -7(3), Vs. Employees Cooperative, Chennai – 600 034. Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. [Pan:Aafat-0366-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Dated 11.10.2024. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days In Appeal Filed By The Revenue, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Revenue & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Revenue In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus

For Appellant: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A
Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Court in the case of PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka) confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal 5. I have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the assessee is a Co-operative

Suntec Business Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3252/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

passed the impugned final assessment order dated 29.10.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 29.10.2024, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised seven grounds and various sub-grounds. Ground Nos.1 & 7 are general in nature and no specific adjudication is called

Shree Dadar Digamer Jain Mumuksho Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption) Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Dadar Digamber Jain The Cit (Exemption), Mumukshu Mandal, Ward-2(3), 271/293, 271/293, Vs. Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Road, Opp: Shivaji Park, P.O. Dadar (West) Mumbai-400028. Pan : Aacts8044A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.N. Shah For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 05-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri A.N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143(1)

only in AY 2014-15 only. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. As we have already noticed, the period of 5 years for spending the accumulated surplus for AY 2008-09 “or in the year immediately following ... expiry thereof” is only AY 2014-15. This aspect has been highlighted by the assessee in ground Nos.2 to 4 in its appeal before the Tribunal, which reads as follows:- “2. That the learned CIT( A) ought to have appreciated that u/s 11(3)(c) of the Income

C.G. Buildcon Private Limited, Raipur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is dismissed

ITA 300/RPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 C.G Buildcon Private Limited B-1, 3Rd Floor, C.G. Elite, Opp. Mandi Gate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Aaccc5355P

For Appellant: Shri S.N Agrawal, CA (Joined virtually)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 801Section 80I

Ward-3(1), Raipur आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This is a recalled matter. In the first round of appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee has assailed 11 grounds as per grounds of appeal which as per the order of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2023 are extracted as follows

Shalom Education Centre, Raigad vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1293/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1293/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Shalom Education Centre, Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Priya, Laxmi Nagar, Khopoli, Raigad-410203 Maharashtra Pan-410203 Appellant Respondent

Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

filed in Form no 10AB by the assessee is hereby rejected. 3.1 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 learned CIT exemption is unjustified

Ashok Bharti Goswami, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

Assessing Officer, the same is accordingly sustained.” 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (A)-Pune-12 and ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Pune has erred

Chitra Narendra Parmar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1269/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

Assessing Officer, the same is accordingly sustained.” 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (A)-Pune-12 and ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Pune has erred

Ramlal Bhikulal Shah, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1268/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

Assessing Officer, the same is accordingly sustained.” 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (A)-Pune-12 and ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Pune has erred

Ramanlal Bhikulal Shah, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1264/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

Assessing Officer, the same is accordingly sustained.” 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (A)-Pune-12 and ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Pune has erred

Chitra Narendra Parmar, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1262/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

Assessing Officer, the same is accordingly sustained.” 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (A)-Pune-12 and ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Pune has erred

Sravan Kumar Ratakonda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 398/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. At the threshold of the hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee is not pressing Ground No.2. Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L, Hyderabad vs. DCIT (Int, Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1242/HYD/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

No.723/Hyd/2022 & | 6 1242/Hyd/2024 7. Aggrieved by all these three orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.11.2011, the assessee filed separate appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, there were following four appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2001-02 before this Tribunal : a. appeal arising out of the original assessment order ... 1242/Hyd/2024 9. At the threshold, it is observed that there is a delay of 2,996 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit, setting out the reasons for such

Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl India Project Office (Formerly Pirelli Cavi Sistemi S P A India Project Office), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, ( Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/HYD/2022[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

account of business expenditure. 7. Aggrieved by all these three orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.11.2011, the assessee filed separate appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, there were following four appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2001-02 before this Tribunal : a. appeal arising out of the original assessment ... statistical purpose." 9. At the threshold, it is observed that there is a delay of 2,996 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit, setting out the reasons

Dhiren Ramanlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2534/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2534/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-23) Dhiren Ramanlal Shah V/S. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1) Fc-5011, Bharat Diamond बिाम 606, Piramal Chambers, Bourse, Bandra Kurla Dr. S. S. Rao Marg, Parel, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400012 Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aayps3843B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Atul Mehta/ Mr. Uday ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 234FSection 250Section 92E

heard u/s 154(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the appellant” 4. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously directed the AO to verify whether the assessee

K Mordani Constructions Private Limited (Formerly Known As K Mordani Constructions LLP), Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1737/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1737/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) K Mordani Constructions V/S. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (Formerly बिाम Assistant Commissioner Of Known As K Mordani Income Tax/Income-Tax Constructions Llp) Officer, National E- Office No. 105, 1St Floor, Assessment Centre, Delhi, Amore Commercial Dcit22(1) Premises Co-Op. Soc. Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Mumbai Junction Of 2Nd & 4Th Road Khar (West), Mumbai -400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfk2128G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh A/W Shri Akshay Pawar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed him ex-parte vide order dated 16.01.2025. 4. The assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that no compliance was made during the first appellate proceedings

I K Corporation, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 790/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the physical copy of the orders passed by NFAC, Delhi was not received by the appellant ... find merit in the condonation petition and dismissed the appeal. ITA Nos.789-790/SRT/2024/AY.09-10 I K Corporation 7. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified and reasonable in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before

I K Corporation, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 789/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the physical copy of the orders passed by NFAC, Delhi was not received by the appellant ... find merit in the condonation petition and dismissed the appeal. ITA Nos.789-790/SRT/2024/AY.09-10 I K Corporation 7. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified and reasonable in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before

Smt. Venkata Leela Bhavani Nimmagadda, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 661/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 147

consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. Aggerieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor intentional, and occurred

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

fats and submissions of the assessee on the issue. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, S. Venugopal, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned PCIT is erred in setting aside the assessment orders passed

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 609/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

fats and submissions of the assessee on the issue. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, S. Venugopal, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned PCIT is erred in setting aside the assessment orders passed