← 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

Greenwood Resorts Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

which have been passed against the assessment orders u/ss 153C/143(3) and 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 110/GTY/2024: i. ITA No. 110/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2014-15: “1. For that assessment order passed ... interest payment and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the paper book filed and the submissions made have been examined. During the course of the appeal

Kundanben Maheshchandra Gor, Umbergaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi

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

ITA 728/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.728/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kundanben Maheshchandra Gor, Vs. The Ito, Plot No 1502, 3Rd Phase, Ward-5, Gidc, Umbergaon - 396195 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awkpg6190P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Chetan Khakhkhar, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2025

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

four additions made by the AO. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 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 the CIT(A) has issued only one notice on 22.12.2018. Thereafter

Sushila Rajesh Yadav, Silvassa vs. CIT Appeal, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 1282/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1282/Srt/2024 Sushila Rajesh Yadav

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)

appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 806 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that she filed appeal against the order u/s 147 r.w.s ... same was confirmed by CIT(A) on 27.07.2022. Thereafter, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal on 09.12.2024, which is time barred by 806 days. The appellant submitted that e- mail id given in the Form No.35 is ‘hkpant129@gmail.com’. However, notices u/s 250 of the Act were sent on ‘hkpantassociates@gmail.com

Amitkumar Pravinchandra Reshamwala, Surat vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru / ITO (Int. Tax) Surat, CPC Bengaluru / ITO Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1240/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1240/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Pravinchandra Deputy Director Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Reshamwala Cpc, Bengaluru/Ao (Int. Tax) Vs. B-1004, Arihant Heightsopp Surat Stuti Icon. Auravpath, Palanpur-395 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agspr 4047 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper book and submitted that the claim of the assessee was in respect

Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

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

ITA 419/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Miss Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132

period from A.Y 2022-23 to 2026- 27.‖ 5. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On facts and in law 1. Violation of principles of natural justice 1.1 The Ld. PCIT has erred in passing ... paper book, he submitted that at the time of application on 10 27.11.2021 the assessee was already in appeal before the Tribunal against the previous cancellation order dated 09.05.2018 and the appeal was disposed of only on 07.02.2023. He submitted that since the matter had not attained finality

Mr. Ananda Kondu Akhade, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(5), Pune

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

ITA 31/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli

/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2012-13. 2. There is a delay of 464 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. He submitted that the delay is not intentional ... rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 464 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee stating the reason for such delay which are as under

Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Pune vs. Maharashtra Bank Employees Coop Credit Society Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.208 & 209/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant Maharashtra Bank Employees Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Vs.93/2, 3Rd Floor, Bank Of Maharashtra Building, Laxmi Road, Budhwar Peth, Pune-411002 Pan: Aaaam0401C प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mr Bhagwat Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays") 2013-14 & 2017-18. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri MR BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Dissatisfied with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR reiterated the same submissions made before the lower authorities in support

Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Pune vs. Maharashtra Bank Employees Coop Credit Socitey Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 208/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.208 & 209/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Bank Employees Co-Op Credit Society Limited, 93/2, 3Rd Floor, Bank Of Maharashtra Building, Laxmi Road, Budhwar Peth, Pune-411002 Pan: Aaaam0401C Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Mr Bhagwat Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 14-05-2025 29-05-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays") 2013-14 & 2017-18. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Dissatisfied with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR reiterated the same submissions made before the lower authorities in support

Chaitnya Pratishtan, Ichalkaranji vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 152/PUN/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 202 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved separate condonation applications for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavits have been filed along with the applications stating therein ... find some merit in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within stipulated time. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra

Chaitnya Pratishtan, Ichalkaranji vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 151/PUN/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 202 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved separate condonation applications for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavits have been filed along with the applications stating therein ... find some merit in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within stipulated time. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra

Prasanna Sadashiv Shete, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

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

ITA 2761/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(3)

result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the copies of assessment orders for assessment years

Income Tax Officer Ward Hingoli, Ward Hingoli (Camp at Parbhani) vs. Vishwas Agro Product Pvt Ltd, Parbhani

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

ITA 1566/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Govind PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje – JCIT (Virtual)
Section 143(2)

hence this ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” 15. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC failed

Pyarelal Shaw, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2687/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

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: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed ... appellant failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, the appeal was heard with the assistance

The Indra Company Limited(As Saumya Trade & Fiscal Services P. Ltd. Merged Into the Indra Co. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(3), Kolkata

ITA 2038/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

dated 05.08.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 19.12.2018. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "01. Against partly sustaining the disallowance of long term capital loss: For that on the facts ... grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR relied upon pages 9 to 55 of the paper

Income-Tax Offier (Exemptions) Madurai, Madurai vs. Career Development Opportunity and Training, Vilangudi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/CHNY/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 383/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer Vs. Career Development Opportunity (Exemptions) & Training, Madurai. Near Selvaraj Textiles, 7, Dindigul Road, Vilangudi, Madurai 625 018. [Pan:Aaatc6975A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit (A)-7, Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant – Revenue Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing Benefit Of Exemption Under Section 2

For Appellant: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Gowthaman, CA
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2

benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant-revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. DR Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) omitted to note that the audit report in Form

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Madurai vs. V V Marine Products, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3029/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3029/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. V V Marine Products, Income Tax, No. 17C, Keeraikaran Thattu, Central Circle 2, Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli 627 657. Madurai. [Pan:Aalfv2122R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A., : Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate & Shri K. Vishwa Padmanaban, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Claim Of Sales Promotion Expenses.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 37

orders of Delhi and Mumbai benches of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Appellant- Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT submits that no details were furnished before the Assessing Officer during the course

The Erode District Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd., Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 3025/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3025/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Erode District Central Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, 1, Bhavani Main Road, Circle 1, Karungalpalayam S.O., Erode 638 003. Erode. [Pan:Aaaat7251P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Making

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 43D

amendment to section 43D of the Act is not applicable. Aggrieved by the findings of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh

The Ron Taluka Primary Teachers Co-Opearative Bank Limited, Gadag vs. ACIT, Cirlce-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 197/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K Kulkarni, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

result, the appeal is partly allowed. 13. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 42 and contended that the authorities below have considered

Rahul M Dalmia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3883/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 Rahul M Dalmia Ito Ward 25(3)(3) 12-A, 5Th Floor, Raj Milan, Mumbai-400051. Dixit Road, Vile Parle East, Vs. 400057. Pan: Aabpd4501G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Kolkata, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/ 1066557784(1) Dated 09/07/2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer - 25(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned A.O. Erred In Passing Order U/S 143(3) Merely On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction, Presumption & Surmises. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned A.O. Erred In Passing Order U/S 143(3) By Issuing Reopening Notice On 19/03/2015. 2 Rahul M Dalmia, A.Y. 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271

debited in the books of accounts. Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made

The Reporters Collective, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1598/DEL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalthe Reporters Collective Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1/22, Asaf Ali Road, Income Tax, New Delhi-110002 Cit(Exemption), Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Omar Hoda & Advocate B. Vittal. Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, [‘Ld. Cit(E)’ For Short] Dated 27/01/2025. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Appellant Who Has Obtained

Section 12A

1 The Reporters Collective Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI