“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

Ajit Anant Joshi, Thane vs. Deputy Commisisoner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Ajit Anant Joshi Deputy Commissioner Of 22 Parijat Society Kashish Income Tax Park, Thane Check Naka, Circle 1, Qureshi Mansion, Vs. Thane (W), 400604. Gokhale Road, Thane-400602. Pan: Adnpj6782A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Ambalal Jain, Ca Revenue : Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit (A)-5 Kolkata, Vide Appeal No. Cit(A), Mumbai-40/10078/2016-17 (Manual Appeal Register Number: 8/2016-17) Dated 28.11.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer 29(1)(1), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 24.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1) On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Upholding The Order Passed By Ld. A.O. U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio, In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri. Ambalal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

upheld the addition so made and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee in this respect. 8. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, assessee has placed on record a written submission along with relevant documentary evidences in the paper book containing 70 pages. In the present

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit-Cc-7(3) Dhiraj Parbat Gothi Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, 302, Encore Bldg, 26 Swami Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Samarth Road, Andheri West, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aespg5029D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Sanket Dashpute, Ca Revenue : Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sanket Dashpute, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3

available on the web site of Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax. Thus, the appeal of was partly allowed. 9. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) by reducing the gross profit rate from 12.5% added

Jsw Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2045/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2045/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) M/S Jsw Infrastructure V/S. Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1), Ltd. बिधम Mumbai 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Bandra Kurla Complex, Karve Road, New Marine Bandra (E), S.O. Mumbai- Lines, Churchgate, 400051 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj6721D Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 14ASection 250

Rule 8D was confirmed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, Ld. AR pointed out that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case

Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Uti Asset Management Company Limited Employees Provident Fund, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2022/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2022/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Ito, 23(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Uti Asset Management 5Th Floor, Room No. 525A, बिधम Company Ltd. Employees Piramal Chambers, Parel, Provident Fund Mumbai-400012 5Th Floor Doaa, Uti Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatu2391J Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt/Shri FaheemFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna

Section 10Section 10(25)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT, wherein the appeal of the Tribunal has been dismissed by stating that the power to entertain of claim for deduction is vested in the assessing Authority, otherwise than ... case. The appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The sole ground of appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the claim of deduction

Jaguar Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar

Section 147Section 263

prejudicial to interest of Revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record

Clifford Dominic Colaco, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Natioanal Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1111/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-20) Clifford Dominic Colaco V/S. Assessment Unit B 521, Ganesh Darshan, बिधम Umarkhade Road, Chinch Bunder, Maharashtra- 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpc8794L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Mr. Chanchal GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

appeal was dismissed as no compliance was made to all the three notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is filed after a delay

Kishor Ramchand Peswani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1041/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1041/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Kishor Ramchand Peswani V/S. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward B/44 Shiv Society, 2Nd बिाम 3(3)(1), Mumbai Floor, Kopri Colony, Thane 6Th Floor, Income Tax (E), Maharashtra-400603 Office, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ayapp5403G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vikas B. Waghmare राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vikas B. WaghmareFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. AR has placed before us a copy of the allotment letter dated 03.09.2010 issued by the builder, M/s Sai Enterprise, vide which Flat No. 405 in the building Rosa Bella was allotted

ITO-15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lakhani Industries Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 6597/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6597/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Ito-15(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Lakhani Industries Ltd. Room No. 204, Second बिधम Gat Number-56, Thane- Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road, Kalwa, Churchgate, Mumbai- Thane-400605 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1625M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 53

assessee’s appeal was accordingly allowed. 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has filed a paper book containing relevant documents in support of his contentions. It has also been certified that some of these documents

M/S. Essar Shipping Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6521/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Gaikwad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi

Section 115B

Income Grand Total (1+2) Grand Total (1+2) 4,69,83,120/- 4,69,83,120/ 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal ... finding of the learned DRP, the assessee is with the finding of the learned DRP, the as in appeal before the T in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds a unal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. The assessee filed a paper book containing pages

Yashvardhan Gokuldas Binani, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (3) (5), Mumbai

ITA 4133/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

vide order dated 19/06/2024, dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. During the course of hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Geecee Ventures Limited, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4119/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

Assessee was dispose off as partly allowed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated 10/06/2024. 7. Now, both the sides, have preferred cross-appeals before the Tribunal while the Assessee has filed Cross Objections in the appeal preferred by the Revenue. 4 ITA 3975&4119/Mum/2024 and C.O.No.205/Mum/2024 Assessment Year ... from the income tax records. 16. Being aggrieved, by the aforesaid directions given by the CIT(A) the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 17. The first contention raised on behalf of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining the grounds raised

Geecee Ventures Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3975/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

Sbi AO West Mumbai Branch, Santacruz(W) vs. The Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, TDS-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2887/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2887/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 250

rectify the order and reduce excess demands raised if any.” 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was bound by P a g e | 7 ITA No. 2886 & 2887/Mum/2024

Uday Vithal Nagpure, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

Appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2511/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 144Section 147Section 250

convinced and therefore, the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed. 12. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 9 Assessment Year 2011-2012 13. As noted hereinabove, none was present on behalf of the Assessee. However, the Assessee had filed a written note/synopsis wherein

DCIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Biostach India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

disallowance of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. and the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 8 ITA No. 349/Mum/2016 & 3559/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Biostodt India Ltd. 9.2 Before us, Ld. AR has submitted a copy

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 349/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2284/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2284/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. Mumbai Port Trust V/S. Cit (Exemptions) Port Bhavan, Shoorji बिधम 617, Piramal Chamber, Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 Pier, Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatm5001D Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

pass the assessment order after making necessary verification and inquiries. 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR argued that there was no error in the order of Ld. AO and most of the issues are recurring

ITO Ward-44(6), New Delhi vs. Harsh Arora, Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 902/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Shri Harsh Arora, Ward 44(6), 38-C, Road No. 73, Room No. 1808, Vs. West Punjabi Bagh, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110026 Pan: Aajpa1520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv. & Shri Dishant Sethi, Adv. Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax [Cit(A), In Short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dt. 19.01.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 14/10140/2017-18 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Vide Letter Dated 29Th May, 2025, Placed On Record, Submitted That The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal In The Name Of Assessee Harsh Arora Who Had Expired On 04.09.2019 I.E. Prior To The Date When The Impugned Order Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). He Further Submitted That The Necessary Action Was Already Taken For Bringing The Legal Representative (Lr) On Record In It Portal & Copy Of The Same Is Also Produced Before Us. It Is, Therefore, Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Dead Person Is Void & Thus Not Maintainable & Deserves To Be Dismissed. Ito Vs. Harsh Arora

Section 159Section 2Section 2(11)Section 2(29)Section 250

facts disclosed before us are not disputed. It is not denied that the deceased assessed had passed away during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the factum of his death was placed on record by Mr. Manjani, counsel appearing ... Shri Deepak Chhabra and Dr. Smt. Sheetal Jhamb shall stand substituted in place of the deceased assessed as his legal representatives in the appeal before the Tribunal. ITO Vs. Harsh Arora (iii) The matter shall stand remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with

Mohit Sukhija, New Delhi vs. Nfa, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4661/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

vide impugned order, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of ld. CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of following grounds of appeal: 1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the documents produced

Ucweb Mobile Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit, Inocome Tax Department, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

pricing adjustments of ₹ 34,37,80,273/- to the total income of the appellant. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case