← 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

Ram Kumar Tallah, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(5) Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 686/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Ksp No.42/Bang/2025 (In Ita No.686/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ram Kumar Tallah, Assessee and Smt. Swathi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 148Section 69A

First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the Order of the FAA, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that assessee filed return of income in response to the notice

Employees Retirement System of Texas, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Short-Term Capital Gains 1,03,36,950 2,67,46,584 8. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. 10. The solitary ... taxable at the rate of 30% as per Section 115AD of the Act. 25. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 22 above. 26. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. During

Fidelity Salem Street Trust Fidelity Sai Emerging Markets Index Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2126/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Short-Term Capital Gains 1,03,36,950 2,67,46,584 8. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. 10. The solitary ... taxable at the rate of 30% as per Section 115AD of the Act. 25. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 22 above. 26. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. During

Anchalik Janakalyan Anusthan, Jharsuguda vs. Commissioner-of-Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 96/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

dated 24.01.2025. I.T.A. No.: 96/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2025-26 Anchalik Janakalyan Anusthan. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration under Section

Sukanti Educational and Charitable Trust, Sonepur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur

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

ITA 51/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 57

Charitable Trust. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 18.12.2018. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed an error of law in not allowing ... source of receipts/details of expenditure.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 51/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sukanti Educational and Charitable Trust. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed

Urmila Kishan, Angul vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 191/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal which are more in the nature of submissions than the grounds of appeal but are reproduced ... assessee was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee has to file

Bandhu N G O, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner-of-Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 102/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 11.12.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application ... 10AB for registration u/s 80G is herewith rejected.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

Gram Vikas Trust, Berhampur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berampur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 437/CTK/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

sake of convenience and brevity. I.T.A. Nos.: 436 & 437/CTK/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gram Vikas Trust. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 436/CTK/2024; AY 2014-15: “Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) and the Assessing

Gram Vikas Trust, Berhampur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berampur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 436/CTK/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

sake of convenience and brevity. I.T.A. Nos.: 436 & 437/CTK/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gram Vikas Trust. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 436/CTK/2024; AY 2014-15: “Ground No. 1: The learned CIT(A) and the Assessing

Sourabh Kumar Vishamvar Singh, Adajan Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Income Tax Office, Court Area, Near Jamui More

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

ITA 331/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) Sourabh Kumar Vishamvar Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Near Jamui Singh, More, Lakhisarai, A-301, Keshav Complex, Bihar Honey Park Road, Adjan, Surat Gujarat-395009 Pan No. :Cgspk 5166 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2025 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)-3, Patna, Dated 18.09.2023 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 24,00,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The I.T Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Taxing The Addition By Taking The Rate @77.25% By Attracting S. 115Bbe Instead Of Normal Tax Rate. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Taxing The Income U/S 115Bbe @ 77.25% In A Retrospective Manner By Applying The Duly Substituted S.115Bbe Inserted Retroactive Instead Of Taxing It At 35.54% As Per The Old Provisions Of S.115Bbe.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 68

Assessing Officer as the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence/details in support of his case. 5. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 3 ITANo.331/Pat/2023 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was having cash in hand

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Stone Crushers, Ibrahimpatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 495/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 69A

short ‘Act’) dated 27.11.2019. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 385 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit wherein he has stated that “Consultant” who have handled assessee’s accounts and taxes and filed the appeal before

The P A C S Noh 1002, Pacs Velvadam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 199/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.199/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The P.A.C.S Noh 1002 V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(5) Pacs Velvadam, Velvadam Post C.R. Building Mylavaram, Krishna District – 521230 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap8170G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 28 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 28 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 is a society

Chemangattu Jose John, Kottayam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Tvm

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/COCH/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2015-16 Chemangattu Jose John Dcit, Circle International V. Taxation, Tvm Chemangattu House, Koodalloor Post, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam, Kerala 686595. Pan : Atxpj2649R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R Krishnan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Irs, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2024 Passed By The Dcit Circle Intl. Txn, Tvm (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act (‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Had Sold Two Agricultural Properties Totaling To Rs.15,59,000/-. The Actual Sale Consideration Was Rs.34,00,000/- & However, As Per Registered Deed, The Sale Consideration Was Rs.15,59,000 & Balance Rs.18,41,000/- Remains Unexplained. The Assessing Officer Made An Addition Of 2 Chemangattu Jose John Rs.18,41,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act As The Assessee Failed To Give Satisfactory Reply Before Him.

For Appellant: Shri R Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, IRS, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69Section 69A

upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the assessee had no control over the value adopted in the registered sale deed by the authority under Indian

Baiju Lekshmanan, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 Baiju Lekshmanan Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, V. Alappuzha Marackasseril, Atiramthengu, Alumpeedika Po, Prayar South, Kollam – 690547. Pan : Ambpl8921A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 17 Days. An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay For 17 Days Has Been Filed By The Assessee Explaining Reasons For Such Delay. We, After Considering The Application For Condoning The Delay, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Shaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69A

appeal filed by the appellant for A.Y. 2017-18 is treated as "Dismissed".” 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds however the primary contention of the assessee is that the assessment was made by the assessing officer

Shree Ayappa Seva Samajam Trust, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 484/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashree Ayappa Seva Samajam Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune Plot No.67, Survey No.484, Opp. Indian Vs. Petrol Pump, Trimbak Road, Satpur, Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aants4413J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avchat Department By : Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

cancelling the provisional registration granted earlier u/s 12AB of the Act. 2. There is a delay of 117 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... Income Tax Act, cancelled 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune has erred in rejecting application for registration/renewal filed by Assessee by passing order under

Nashik Malayalee Cultural Association, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 483/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 120 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune has erred in rejecting application for registration/renewal filed by Assessee by passing

Nashik Malayalee Cultural Association, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 482/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 120 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune has erred in rejecting application for registration/renewal filed by Assessee by passing

Baburao Chandere Social Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 389/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrababurao Chandere Social Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune 3Rd Floor, Flat No.301, 1 Wing, Sr. Vs. No.89, Uthrika Veerbhadra Nagar, Baner, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaeab4179N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvraj Chavan Department By : Shri Sandeep Sengupta, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri B C Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Grihum Housing Finance Limited, Pune

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1883/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(91)Section 36(1)(va)

rate of 25% instead of 30%. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying a tax rate of 25% instead of the correct rate

Prabhat Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patnsanstha Maryadit Tadwadi, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 3, Panvel

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

ITA 1433/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Vishal Makawane
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 44ASection 44BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

अपील आंनिक रूप से स्वीकृत / स्वीकृत / "खारिज" की जाती हैं। As a result, the appeal is "dismissed". 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that during the relevant AY 2017-18, the assessee earned