← 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

Mohan Dagadu Chougale, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1312/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

sustained the above two additions. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that although the assessee had admitted the excess stock of Rs.18

Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering and Technology Trust, Angul vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1357/HYD/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2025-26
For Appellant: C.A. Ambika MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 115TSection 12A

acknowledge these genuine efforts.” 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 85 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In support of the condonation request, the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a sworn affidavit dated 03.02.2025. In this regards

Universal Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 53/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 119(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

dated 10.12.2019. I.T.A. No.: 53/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Universal Cables Limited. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Addl/Jt. CIT(A) grossly ... partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 14.11.2024. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made, paper book filed and the case laws relied upon have been examined. The only ground

Sri Maheswari Dharmsala, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 528/KOL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 528/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. Sri Maheswari Dharmsala. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the rejection of form 10AB is arbitrary and not justified as Assessee had filed form ... Aggrieved with the cancellation order for the provisional approval and rejection of the grant of approval for registration, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though earlier notice

Gobinda Debnath, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Durgapur

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

ITA 251/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddygovinda Debnath, Vs Ito, Ward-1(3), Durgapur 0 Salbagan Road, Benachity Durgapur, Burdwan-713213 Pan No. :Acwpd 9299 G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri L.N.Dash, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.N.Dash, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

through hard copy. In this regard, the assesse has enclosed the screenshots of the e-filing portal upto the date of filing the appeal before the Tribunal which shows that no notice even served on the assesse before passing the ex-parte order. Thus, the ld. AR submitted that

Narbhavi T.S. Ramanujam & Mathurabai Ketkar Trust, Chennai vs. CIT Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 591/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:591/Chny/2025 M/S. Narbhavi T.S. Ramanujam & The Cit(Exemption), Mathurabai Ketkar Trust, Vs. Chennai. No.1039/1, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Chennai – 600 019. Pan: Aaatn 0385R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Ganapathy, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)

this order and hence the application is rejected.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee does not have a provisional registration and it ought to have filed the application in Form

M/S. Mahendra Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 447/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:447/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.56/B1, Pantheon Road, Vs. Income Tax, Egmore, Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. Pan: Aanpm 2662B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 264Section 56

delay in filing the appeal before him. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book enclosing therein the statement of total income, order passed u/s.154 of the Act, various case laws relied

Najeeb Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2701/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Najeeb Charitable Trust Exem. Ward2(1) A-28, Eversweet Apartment, Income Tax Appellant J.P.Road, Jogeshwari(West), Vs. Tribunal Building, Mumbai-400053. Pratishtha Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaatn0425G Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dipesh Ruparelia, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/05/2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At The Very Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 262 Days In Filing Of Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Duly Sworn Affidavit Has Contended That Though The Assessee In Response To The Notices Dated 28.02.2024 & 12.04.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Act Issued By The Ld. Commissioner, Filed Its Written Submission, However, The Ld. Commissioner Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Being Heard Decided The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh Ruparelia, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R
Section 250

Trust 31.05.2024 u/s. 250 of the Act. The Assessee was unaware of the aforementioned order being passed and therefore missed filing of relevant appeal before the Tribunal, as the erstwhile CA of the appellant did not inform the appellant regarding this order. The appellant was fully dependent

DCIT (It) -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jp Morgan India Smaller Companies Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 250Section 90(2)

accepted the Assessee’s claim of carry forward the aforesaid Brought Forward Capital Losses. 7. Being aggrieved the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record and examined

Ms. Allied Trade Links, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-2, Guwahati

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Trade Links. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts

Goodwill Founation Charitable Trust, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Surat

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

ITA 427/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.427 & 426/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Goodwill Foundation Charitable Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Trust, Ahmedabad A 102, Sky Heaven Ved Gurukul Road Ved, Surat - 395004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadtg9648P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Harikrishna Gohil, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G(5)(iii)

assessee-trust filed both appeals on 09.04.2025 before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavits giving similar reasons for delays in filing both appeals before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the trust was registered in the Office of the Charity Commissioner, Surat on 06.10.2021 with Registration ... provisional registration granted earlier. ITA Nos.427 & 426/SRT/2025/AY.2024-25 Goodwill Foundation Charitable Trust 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that as the case has been decided without considering the merit of the case, the matter

Goodwill Foundation Charitable Trust, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Surat

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

ITA 426/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.427 & 426/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Goodwill Foundation Charitable Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Trust, Ahmedabad A 102, Sky Heaven Ved Gurukul Road Ved, Surat - 395004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadtg9648P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Harikrishna Gohil, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G(5)(iii)

assessee-trust filed both appeals on 09.04.2025 before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavits giving similar reasons for delays in filing both appeals before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the trust was registered in the Office of the Charity Commissioner, Surat on 06.10.2021 with Registration ... provisional registration granted earlier. ITA Nos.427 & 426/SRT/2025/AY.2024-25 Goodwill Foundation Charitable Trust 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that as the case has been decided without considering the merit of the case, the matter

Nirangdin Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 295/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.293 To 295/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Nirangdin Trust, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 12, P. K. Vakil Atashbehram, P. K. Ahmedabad Vakil Street, Shahpore, Gujarat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtp1097M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has ITA Nos.293 to 295/SRT/2025 Nirangdin Trust filed an affidavit for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the CIT(E) rejected the application in Form No.10AB

Nirangdin Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 294/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.293 To 295/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Nirangdin Trust, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 12, P. K. Vakil Atashbehram, P. K. Ahmedabad Vakil Street, Shahpore, Gujarat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtp1097M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has ITA Nos.293 to 295/SRT/2025 Nirangdin Trust filed an affidavit for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the CIT(E) rejected the application in Form No.10AB

Janta Sarvajanik Kelvani Mandal, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 277/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.277 & 273/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Janta Sarvajanik Kelvani Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Mandal, Ahmedabad Sarvodaya Nagar, Sardar Baug, Gujarat – 3946002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatj1758N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Dinesh Ramani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Hence, the application was treated as non-maintainable and rejected without merit. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) filed a paper book containing 33 pages, which includes submission, registration u/s 12AA and 80G, application

Janta Sarvajanik Kelvani Mandal, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 273/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.277 & 273/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Janta Sarvajanik Kelvani Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Mandal, Ahmedabad Sarvodaya Nagar, Sardar Baug, Gujarat – 3946002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatj1758N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Dinesh Ramani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Hence, the application was treated as non-maintainable and rejected without merit. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) filed a paper book containing 33 pages, which includes submission, registration u/s 12AA and 80G, application

Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahemdabad

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

ITA 246/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.246 & 245/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), B-2271, Gopipura, Parsiwad, Ahmedabad Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavts8551K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

section 12A of the Act and also cancelled the provisional registration. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that as the case has been decided without considering the merit of the case, he requested that ... provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(E) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 02.09.2024. The appeal filed before

Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 245/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.246 & 245/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), B-2271, Gopipura, Parsiwad, Ahmedabad Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavts8551K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

section 12A of the Act and also cancelled the provisional registration. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that as the case has been decided without considering the merit of the case, he requested that ... provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(E) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 02.09.2024. The appeal filed before

Shah Manilal Motilal Khadayta, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 244/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 244/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Shah Manilal Motilal Commissioner Of Income-Tax बनाम/ Khadayta Chhatralay & (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Vs. Bhuvan Mandal Gurjar Bhawan (Vejalpur), Near Sachin Ealiya, Contractor Ni Sheri, Tower, 100 Foot Ring Road, Haripura, Surat-395 003 Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aants 1271 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

application was rejected without going into the merit of the case. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that against the order of rejection of the application for registration ... appellant had filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the order of CIT(E) and remanded it to the file of CIT(E) for passing a fresh order after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, he requested that the present order

Shree Koteshwar Mahadev Public Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 211/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.211/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Koteshwar Mahadev Commissioner Of Income-Tax बनाम/ Public Trust (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Vs. B/H Dholakiya Garden, Bhawan (Vejalpur), Near Sachin Katargam Main Road, Tower, 100 Foot Ring Road, Katargam, Surat-395 004 Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagts 9911 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

rejected and the provisional approval was also cancelled. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book containing various details and case laws. He submitted that the CIT(E) has rejected