← 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

Aavishkar Oral Strips Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 369/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Goud, C.A
Section 115JSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

confirmed the action of the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.369/Hyd/2025 | 5 6. The Learned Authorised Representative(“Ld. AR”) submitted that, as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule

ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Arman Ali, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 79/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

vide order dated 08.01.2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 6. The LD. AR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A), whereas, the Ld. DR supports

Subhash Murarka, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 176/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subhash Murarka C-1/85/186-R7, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aeqpm4578P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

appeal on record. 2. It is noted, at the very outset that there is a delay of 520 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a condonation petition as well as an affidavit. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that ... parties herein in respect of the grounds of limitation, we are of considered view that such delay in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal has been caused not due to any mistake or deliberate conduct of the assessee. 5. We have perused the Form No. 35, and therein

Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 29/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.29/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Raj Enterprise Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ F.P.No. 89,R.S. No.24 & 25, Ward -1(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. T.P. No.4 Kpm Residency, Anavil Business Center, Adajan Road, Opp. Chandan Park, City Surat-395 009 Light, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifr 8742 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)

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 firm of assessee is dormant and not doing any business since last many years. There ... amongst the partners of the assessee-firm and it was also dormant; due to which, the delay of 135 days occurred in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Considering all these facts, we find that delay was not deliberate and intentional, but it was due to internal disputes amongst the partners

Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Surat.

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

ITA 1322/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1322/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 150, Gidc, Pandesara, Vs. Ward -1(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat-394 221 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg 88182R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249Section 250

appellant has not filed a valid appeal and, hence, he did not admit the appeal. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant tried to file the appeal online before the due date. However, the ITBA portal did not allow

Sanjukta Varanasi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 225/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.225/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(3) Sanjukta Varanasi D.No. 49-46-4/30 Income Tax Office Ramakrishna Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Near Jaggarao Bridge Mvp Double Road Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530017 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afspv9008E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 166 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee during

Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala, Gudivada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.214/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala Asst. City Planner Gudiwada, Andhra Pradesh Gudivada Municipality Gudivada – 521301 Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Acspy1662Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri K. Siva Rama Kumar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 250

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 144 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 144 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, based

Britg Foundation, Vizianagaram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/VIZ/2025[2022-23 to 2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.208/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2022-23 To 2026-27) Britg Foundation V. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) 22-14-12, Kotlamadappa Street Aaykar Bhawan, Opp. L.B. Stadium Vizianagaram H.O. Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Telangana Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaetb5357K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Sanjeevarao, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... I.T.A.No.208/VIZ/2025 BRITG FOUNDATION limit with a delay of 90 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed

Action for Impact Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 649/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2025 Action For Impact Foundation, Cit, Exemption, Flat No. 408, Gold Croft, Co-Op Hsg Pune Society, Chinchwad Station Road, Vs. Thergaon, B.O. Tanaji Nagar, Pune-411033 Pan : Aavca7643K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 10-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Income Tax has no power to condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT Exemption erred in law and on facts in treating the application under Clause

Athipalli Sai Sravan, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 644/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Venkata Suseela, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144B

following grounds of appeal : 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In support of the condonation of delay, the assessee has filed a petition along with relevant facts explaining the cause of delay ... order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached a new counsel and took necessary steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. This sequence of events led to a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR pleaded before the Bench that

Integra Automation Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. Corporate Circle 1(1) Che, Chennai

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

ITA 1091/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1091/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Integra Automation Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Sf 238, Kurunallipalayam Income Tax, Village, Kinathukadavu, Negamam S.O. Corporate Circle 1(1), Emmegoundenpalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 642 120. [Pan:Aaaci7412H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Sivaraman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri B. Sivaraman, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

before the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made in the assessment order. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri B. Sivaraman, C.A. drew our attention to para 7.2 at page 6 of the impugned order and submits

Varatharaj Venugopal, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 1058/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1058/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varatharaj Venugopal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 13, Thiruvalluvar Nagar 4Th St., Ward 1(1), Nesavalar Colony, East P.N. Road, Tiruppur. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan:Aylpv5231F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghavan, Advocate (Virtual) For Shri R.C. Sachin, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan, Advocate (virtual) for Shri R.C. Sachin, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

that the same were not furnished before the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR Shri Raghavan, Advocate submits that non-response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer is neither deliberate

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

noncompliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section

Mohammed Basheer Bairikatte Hosamane, Dakshina Kannada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the Order of the CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the AO has wrongly applied

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Thus, the CIT(A) enhanced the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A) confirming ... However, the CIT(A) agreed with the Assessing Officer and rejected the contentions raised by the Assessee. 5.3. In appeal before this Tribunal both the sides reiterated their respective stands. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee vehemently contended that the order passed by the Assessing Officer

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4063/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2) India Pvt. Ltd. D-181, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area , Phase-1 New Delhi- 110020 Pan :Aaack4816D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

revised the order and made the adjustment of Rs, 1,76,15,974/-. Being aggrieved the order the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. CIT(A) observed in his order as under: A.Y. 2008-09 M/s. Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. ITO 6 “I have perused the transfer pricing

Sh. Vinod Panwar, Dehradun vs. ITO, Kotdwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 40/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shri Vinod Panwar, Vs Ito, 7, Mohanpur, Prem Nagar, Kotdwar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Dehradun, Pan-Akppp5733Q Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.K.Ahuja, Ar Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

bank account during previous year excluding the demonetization period, was confirmed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein various grounds of appeal were taken by the assessee. As all these grounds of appeal relate to the confirmation of addition

Namita Agrawal, Uttrakhand vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun, Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Namita Agrawal, Vs Dcit, 36/1, E C Road, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand-248001 Dehradun Pan-Afspa0668P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. & Shri Naman Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 Order

Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69B

vide order dated 05.12.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of AO for initiating proceedings under section

Mohd Shazad, Haridwar vs. ITO, Roorkee

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 139/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal contending that the Assessee has engaged the service of the Chartered Accountant for filing the Appeal before the Tribunal,who died in the month of March, 2024. The Assessee was under the bonafide impression that the Appeal has been filed

Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

assessee did not find any favour, from the appeal so filed before the Id. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the assessee, Id. AR of the assessee, has filed ... carried in appeal by the assessee and on the assessee succeeding before the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue has filed second appeal before the Tribunal which is stated to be pending. It is pertinent to note that the first appellate authority decided the appeal for the assessment year