← 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

Champalal Mangilal Jain, Nandurbar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-N Dhule, Dhule

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

ITA 422/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.422/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the impugned order. 5. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. On perusal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1238/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 56(2)(x)

appeal are, therefore, ALLOWED.” 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book ... Ground no. 4 of the appeal is, therefore, allowed.” 15. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied

Riddhi Seva Kendra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 370/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrariddhi Seva Kendra, Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru, C/O Subas Agarwal & Ito, Ward-1(1), Exempt, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Kolkata Income Tax Office, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Vs 10B, Middleton Road, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata - 700071 Kolkata - 700069 (Pan: Aaatr2893Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR drew our attention to para

Ampi Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 365/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraampi Foundation, Deputy Director Of Income Unimark Asian, 16Th Floor, Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, (Jurisdictional Assessing Kolkata - 700017 Vs Officer, Ward 1(4), (Pan: Aadta8073A) Exempt, Kolkata, 10, Middleton Row, Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

AMPI Foundation accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were considered and details furnished by the assessee have been examined. 5. It is submitted in the statement of facts filed along

University of North Bengal, Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 2649/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250

appeal was dismissed on account of delay. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed have been examined. Even though at pages

M/S Tega Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2597/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 26.10.2024. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: I.T.A. No.: 2597/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. “1. Order bad in law and on facts 1.1. That the assessment order passed ... adding the variation of ₹ 24,79,701/- to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 2597/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s. Tega Industries Ltd. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper

Swelect Energy Systems Limited Formerly Swelect Solar Energy Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corp Ward 6 (4), Chennai

ITA 472/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:472/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2014-15 Swelect Energy Systems Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Formerly Swelect Solar Energy Pvt. Vs. Corporate Ward 6(4) Ltd., Chennai. 'Swelect House', No.5, P.S. Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aadcn 3843J अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate (Through Virtual Mode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Delhi Dated 18.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15.

For Appellant: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

exempt income during the relevant assessment year. ITA No.472/CHNY/2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that for the relevant assessment year namely 2014-15, the amendment/insertion of Explanation to Section 14A of the Act vide

Cud Dt Public Health Dept Emp Co Op Society by Fc, Cuddalore vs. AO, Cuddalore

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

ITA 471/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:471/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 M/S. Cud Dt Public Health Dept. The Income Tax Officer, Emp. Co-Op Society By Fc, Vs. Ward 2, No.4, Appavu Street, Cuddalore. Pudupallayam, Cuddalore H.O., Cuddalore – 607 001. Pan: Aacac 9724A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

interest of substantial justice. 3. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case ... assessee, the FAA confirmed the order of the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that since the co-operative audit was not completed till the due date for filing the return of income

Mithalal Bhanwarlal Jain, Virar East vs. AO Ward 4(2), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 993/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr.Dhyanesh M. Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

first appeal, ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition so made and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In the given set of facts, as narrated above, we note that entries amounting to Rs.35,45,416/- cannot be considered as part

The Staff Gratuity Fund of the Maharashtra State Co Op Cotton Growers Markd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Range 17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3162/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am The Staff Gratuity Fund Of The Pcit, Maharashtra State Co-Opp. Cotton Range 17, Growers Marked, Mumbai [Jurisdictional 201, Jolly Bhavan No.2, 2Nd Floor, 7 Commissioner For Issuing New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Exemption Certificate U/S Vs. Mumbai 10(25)(Iv)]. Room No.120, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatt 8512G Appellant By : Shri Gautam Ghokhale Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam GhokhaleFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr DR)
Section 10(25)(iv)Section 253

Staff Gratuity Fund of the Mahrashtra 2. At the outset, parties were heard on the preliminary issue of maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal. On careful perusal of Section 253 of the Act, we were unable to locate any provision vesting right to appeal against an order passed ... specific query being made, learned counsel appearing for the assessee could not provide any satisfactory reply regarding maintainability of the present appeal before the Tribunal. Since, the order appealed against is not an appealable order before the Tribunal in terms with Section 253 of the Act, we decline to entertain

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 7779/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271G

A.Y.2009-10, the ld. DRP has held that assessee’s income is to be taxed on receipt basis and Revenue had come in appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, Department had preferred an appeal before the ITAT against the final assessment order. The Mumbai Tribunal, while adjudicating 5 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Vasantiben Nareshbhai Tandel, Daman vs. ITO, Ward-5, Vapi

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

ITA 956/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.956/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Vasantiben Nareshbhai Tandel, Vs. The Ito, House No.61/1, Kadaiya, Machhiwad, Ward - 5, Nani Daman – 396210, Damand & Vapi Diu (Ut) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahspt6036E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

hence, the appeal was dismissed by him. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that both lower authorities have passed ex parte orders without hearing the appellant on merit. He also submitted

Suresh Krishnamoorthy, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/COCH/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal Snr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154

under Section 154 before the CPC and directed the assessee to pursue rectification under that provision. 4. The assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal contending that the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the matter on merits, especially when all the documents were available on record

Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram

ITA 592/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Bineesha Baby,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.. Leena Lal, Sr, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee, is unwarranted. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition so made by the AO. 4. The Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR stated that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim under Section

M/S. B.R. Dutta, Rampurhat, Birbhum vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Suri

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

ITA 29/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddym/S B R Dutta Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Suri-731101 Shibtalla Para, Rampurhat, Birbhum-731224 Pan No. :Aahfb 7626 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 08.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2014-15, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,60,796 Made By Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Suri Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Failure Of The Assessee To Deduct Tax At Source On The Payments Made To Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Although The Said Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Had Declared The Receipt Of Income In Their Return Of Income & Paid Taxes Thereon. 2. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Was Filed Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,90,520/-. The Assessee Is A Wholesaler/Distributor Of Fertilizer, Pesticides & Maintains Regular Books Of A/Cs. Which Is Audited U/S. 44Ab Of The 1.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Debited As Amount Of 13,60,796/- To The Profit & Loss A/C. For Payment Of 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

assessee affirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the year under assessment the assessee Firm paid a sum of Rs.13

Anil Kumar Agarwala, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 254/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyanil Kumar Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri Ground Floor, Dhanotia Bhawan, Nehru Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling-734005 Pan No. :Acfpa 3408 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri L.N.Dash, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri L.N.Dash, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 147

file appeal within the prescribed time. When the assessee engaged another advocate, he advised that there has already been a delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 187 days and requested for condoning the delay

Shambhu Dasgupta, Dalkhola vs. Income Tax Officer, Raiganj

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

ITA 221/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.221/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shambhu Dasgupta Vs Income Tax Officer, It Office, Sbi Building, Subhaspally, Dalkhola, Karnojhora, Raiganj, Karandighi, Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal-733201 Pan No. : Ciwpd 4351 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Chandan Sanghai, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi Dated 18.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, I Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belatedly By 10 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal. In The Said Affidavit, The Assessee Has Sworn That The Assessee Was Suffering From Some Health Issues From 04.01.2025 To 17.01.2025 & Was Under Medical Treatment During This Period, Which Caused The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Within The Stipulated Period. In Support Of The Same, The Assessee Has Also Enclosed Medical Certificate. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Objection To Condone The Delay. Considering The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Chandan Sanghai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

from some health issues from 04.01.2025 to 17.01.2025 and was under medical treatment during this period, which caused the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. In support of the same, the assessee has also enclosed medical certificate. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise

Subal Chandra Maity, Paschim Mednipur vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), Midnapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/KOL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddysubal Chandra Maity, Vs Ito, Ward-39(1), Midnapur Mohanpur, Midnapore Sadar, Paschim Mednipur, Wb Pan No. :Adypm 7411 N (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl. CIT-Sr.Dr
Section 143(1)Section 148

basis that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the expenses claimed. 3 ITANo.205/KOL/2025 3. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal with the grounds as mentioned hereinabove. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of Rs.2

Sree Taralabalu Jagadguru Education Society, R T Nagar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 762/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Shreeraksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

reasoned and explained in his Order. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has more than 185 educational Page

Shri Bhadreshwar Education and Social Welfare Trust, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bijapur

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

ITA 700/BANG/2025[2020-221]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2020-221

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 11Section 143(1)

exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the CPC has wrongly considered the entire receipts