“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

M/S. Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, we are here angry the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2599/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 31.03.2019. I.T.A. Nos.: 2599 and 2600/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 2599/KOL/2024: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (here-in-after referred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. Kaushalya Nirman Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1068/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Addl. Cit, Central Range-3, Kolkata For Perusal & Onwards Transmission To The Ld. Pr. Cit, Central-2. Kolkata. Subsequently, On 07.05.2024 The Ld. Pr. Cit Accorded Approval For Filing Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Kolkata. After Receiving The Approval, The Following Documents Have Been Prepared (Three Copies Each) For Filing The Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Kolkata. 1) Form No. 36

Section 250Section 56(2)(vib)

each) for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata. 1) Form No. 36 2 Kaushalya Nirman Pvt. Ltd. 2) Grounds of Appeal before the tribunal 3) Certified Copy of CIT(Appeal) order 4) Certified Copy of Form No. 35 along with Grounds of Appeal & Statements of facts

Madurai Veeran Jeyaraman, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 1(3), Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms above

ITA 697/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.697/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21. Madurai Veeran Jeyaraman, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.11/2A, Vanniar Lane, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Anuppanadi, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 009. [Pan:Aiipj0237E] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 253Section 264

PCIT, Madurai. Against the order passed u/s. 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. We are of the considered view that there is no right of appeal provided under the statute against the order passed u/s. 264 of the Act. In fact

Pethikuttai Thimmappa Gounder Nagarajan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 1240/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1240/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pethikuttai Thimmappa Gounder Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Nagarajan, 101-A, Thanka Salai, Ward 2(1), Punjai Pulliyampatti, Erode 638 459. Erode. [Pan:Bbupn1447E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi 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) Is Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Inadmissible & Defective In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 147

assessee as the appeal of the assessee is inadmissible and defective. On being aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate drew our attention to e- Proceedings Response Acknowledgement No.855803171310125 as well as para

Johnson Paul Irene Paul, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 1230/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1230/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Johnson Paul Irene Paul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 143, Sipcot Staff Housing Ward 1, Colony, Mookandapalli, Hosur. Hosur 635 126. [Pan:Abcpi4853J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 334 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

sufficient cause for the delay was shown by the assessee for the delay of 113 days. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri G. Baskar, Advocate submits that delay in filing of appeal is mainly due to lockdown imposed

Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 1228/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Best Matriculation School, Mariamman Exemptions Ward, Koil Road, Bye Pass Rountana, Trichy. Thanjavur 613 001. [Pan:Aabtb6646G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 30 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

assessee has no sufficient cause for not filing the same before the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate drew our attention to second para page 3 of the impugned order and submits that most

Ieee Mumbai Section Welfare Association, Mumbai vs. Wx, Mumbai

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

ITA 3331/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3331/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2024-25) Ieee Mumbai Section V/S. Ito (E) Ward 1(3), Mumbai Welfare Association बिाम Don Bosco Institute Of Technology, Premier Automobiles Road, Opp. Fiat Company, Kurla S.O, Mumbai-400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaai6455J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Ms. Abhilasha Sanjay PawarFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani

Section 12A

withdrawn for the reason that the assessee was required to challenge the original order dated 21.03.2023. Accordingly, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, along with a request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 5. In view of above facts and circumstances explained

Pkh Ventures Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate

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

ITA 3322/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anirudh Dave (Instructed by Shri Piyush Agarwal)For Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Ventures Ltd. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that no compliance could be made during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) as the notices were sent on a different email

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3261/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3262/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) The Indian Hume Pipe Co. V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-1 Ltd. बिाम Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, 2Nd Floor, Construction Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Expenses, Walchand Road, Mumbai, Hirachand Marg, Ballard Maharashtra-400020 Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4063D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. Navya Chilukumari राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. NavyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment afresh after providing due opportunity to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and has raised as many as seven grounds of appeal. 6. In the first ground, the assessee has stated that the impugned addition

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3261/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. NavyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 263

Yashaswini Investments Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3124/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh JoijodeFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

demand accordingly. The CIT(A) agreed with the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. Therefore, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On perusal of the Profit & Loss Account of the Assessee for the relevant previous year, we find that the Assessee had debited

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Essel Utilities Distribution Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2725/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 14A

preceding assessment year, deleted the disallowance so made. 2.4 The Revenue, in turn, being dissatisfied with the appellate order, preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The short question arising for consideration is whether any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is permissible in a case where the assessee

Jaiswal Youth Federation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 2410/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2410/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2025-26) Jaiswal Youth Federation V/S. Cit (Exemptions), Mumbai 105, Adishakti Chs, बिाम 601, Comballa Hill, Mtnl Behind S Habri Hotel, M. Te Building, Pedder Road, G. Road, Goregaon (West), Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Mumbai, Maharashtra- Marg, Cumballa Hill, 400104 Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecj8414G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna

Section 11Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

accordingly, the application was rejected vide order dated 25.12.2024. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee company is a Section 8 registered company, which is involved in genuine charitable activities

Chandrakumar Bhanwarlal Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2265/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2265/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Chandrakumar Bhanwarlal V/S. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1), Kothari बिाम Piramal Chamber, Ward 5/213, Shiv Prerna Shivaji 19(1)(1), Mumbai-400025 Nagar, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400025 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amnpk9283E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Suryadev Yadev & Shri Karan Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan

For Appellant: Shri Suryadev Yadev & ShriFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

restrict the addition to Rs. 30,20,073/-. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The sole substantive issue involved is regarding the addition of Rs. 30,20,273/- u/s 69 of the Act. 7. It is seen that

Sagar Shopping Developers, Santacruz East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

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

ITA 1793/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1793/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sagar Shopping Developers V/S. Dcit Sagar Avenue 2, Opposite बिाम Piramal Chambers, Dr. Ss J. N. Road, Near Vikola Road Marg, Parel, Mumbai- Bridge, Santacruz East, 400012 Mumba, Maharashtra- 400055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadfs1422M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Anirudh Dave (Instructed By Piyush Agarwal) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr. स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2025 Passed U/S.

For Appellant: Shri Anirudh Dave (instructed by Piyush Agarwal)For Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr

Section 147Section 148Section 69

dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.01.2025. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Sagar Shopping Developers 6. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was unable to make

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1453/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

directed to be deleted and accordingly grounds of appeal nos. 1 and 2 are considered to be Allowed." The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The ld. DR at the outset submitted that by claiming that the income is not taxable

Parshwa Investment, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1429/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Parshwa Investment Deputy Commissioner Of B-602, Klassic Gold Hotel, Off Cg Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1) Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Vs. Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Gujrat- 380009 Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, M.K.Road, Mumbai, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aatfp 4387 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was dismissed. The assessee has now preferred the 5 Parshwa Investment. present appeal before the Tribunal and raised, inter-alia, an additional ground challenging the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, contending that the correct and mandatory

Mr. 3 Sigma Global Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the gain arising from the transfer of Derivatives cannot be taxed in India and the addition made in this regard stands deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereb...

ITA 1130/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

therefore the income is to be taxed in India as per Article 13(3A) of India-Mauritius DTAA. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. The assessee raised the following grounds

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No 519/Mum/2025 is dismissed

ITA 1074/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, ARFor Respondent: 24.06.2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 69A

view of the above discussion, the averments of the Applicant do not find favour with this Panel.” 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. Ground No.1 & 2 raised

Uniquestar Gems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1037/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1037/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) Uniquestar Gems (India) V/S. The Ito, Ward 13(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. बिाम Mumbai Tara Niwas, M. Block, 2 Nd Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Floor, J. S. S. Road, Opera Road, New Marine Lines, House, Maharahstra- Maharashtra-400020 400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcm6116D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 690Section 69C

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2024. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. On the date fixed for hearing, no compliance was made by the assessee, nor had any application for adjournment been filed. Earlier also