“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

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

directed AO to grant reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book containing 142 pages, which includes the replies

Torrent Energy Limited (Now Merged With Torrent Power Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 254Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

legal claim can be considered at the appellate stage even without filing a revised return. The Department had not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal against this finding, and therefore, it had attained finality. 7 12. The AR pointed out that the Co-ordinate Bench did not disturb this finding

Kali Bari Samiti, Pune vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 245/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrakali Bari Samiti Cit (Exemption), Pune S.No.254B, Park Road, Vs. Pune – 411020 Pan: Aaatk7059B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sarang S Gudhate Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sarang S GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption

Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Kharkhana Ltd, Chikhali vs. DCIT Circle, Sangli

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

ITA 2724/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2724/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Vs. Dcit, Circle, Sangli. Kharkhana Ltd., Gat. No.182/1, Yashwantnagar, Chikhali- 415408. Pan : Aaaav0215B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(xvii)Section 37(1)

vide order dated 11.09.2017. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also upheld the 3 above assessment order. The assessee than preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed

Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke, Ahilyanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2223/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke Ito, Ward – 1, At Post Hanga, Tal. Parner, Ahilyanagar Vs. Dist. Ahilyanagar – 414001 Pan: Adepl9114B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prasad S Bhandari Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 08-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

parte order passed by him dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessment order passed on 03.03.2022 was during the Covid

Upashan Debnath, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.378/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upashan Debnath……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant Vill. Nagarukhra, P.S.Haringhata, Haringhata, Nadia, West Bengal – 741257. [Pan: Axfpd1830M] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Roychowdhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 266 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,59,440/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44A

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 266 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of such delay explaining reasons for the delay. We, after perusing the petition made in the application, satisfy that there were bona ... sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer solely on the ground of non-compliance. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the ld. AR is that the impugned order

Ram Kaur Singh, Kolkata vs. Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.359/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant 8, Mansarala Lane, Khiderpore, Kolkata – 700023. [Pan: Alhps2735G] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navans Shah, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 264 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,78,230/-. Subsequently, The Case Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 264 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of such delay explaining reasons for the delay. We, after perusing the petition made in the application, satisfy that there were bona ... sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer solely on the ground of non-compliance. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the ld. AR is that the impugned order

Dilip Tahlani & Sons HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 26(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.354/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dilip Tahlani & Sons Huf……………………………………...….……….Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aafhd1429P] Vs. Ito, Ward-26(2), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 81 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 81 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of such delay explaining reasons for the delay. We, after perusing the petition made in the application, satisfy I.T.A. No.354/Kol/2025 Assessment Year ... assessee without properly examining and appreciating the evidences submitted by the assessee before him. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the ld. AR is that the alleged addition made by the Assessing Officer was erroneous

Himalayan Endeavour Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 237/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

findings of the ld. CIT(A) as it is the order of the ld. CIT(A) that is the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) as extracted above, lack any reasoning whatsoever. It is being reiterated in numerous decisions of various

Himalayan Endeavour Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Himalayan Endeavour Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Siliguri

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Roma Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.200/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd……………………………………...….……….Appellant Room No.1A, 20B, West Bengal, East India House, Bbd Bag, West Bengal-700069. [Pan: Aadcc6607K] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata.….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 88 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income As Nil. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 69Section 69C

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 88 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of such delay explaining reasons for the delay. We, after perusing the petition made in the application, satisfy that there were bona ... assessee by 3,52,22,603/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues involved in the appeal. However, the primary contention of the ld. AR is that the addition of Rs.7

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्न IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2672/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

total income of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 20. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, by filing FC-GPR filed with Reserve bank of India for allotment of shares to the overseas shareholders

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

ITA 2671/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2670/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sonasta Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections are also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1775/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1775/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Ito 13(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Sonasta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 147, Aayakar बिधम 111, Small Scale Industrial Bhavan, Churchgate, M. K. Premises Soc. Ltd. 7, Road, Mumbai, Udyog Nagar, S. V. Road, Maharashtra-400020 Goregaon, Maharashtra- 400062 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecs0035L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi

Section 131Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Aggrieved with the order Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue is aggrieved on the following grounds : Firstly, the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the parties. Secondly, the director of the assessee company

Padmanabh Pioneer Promoters LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 5848/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5848/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Padmanabh Pioneer V/S. Ito – 25(3)(1), Mumbai Promoters Llp बिधम Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- 4 Buona Casa, Sir P.M. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Road, Fort Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (E), 400001 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfp9898G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi

Section 250Section 40

assessee’s appeal on both grounds vide order dated 19.09.2024. 6. Aggrieved with the order Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. In all, there are two substantive grounds of appeal. 7. Ground No. 1 Addition on account of undervaluation of closing stock ... disallowing 30% of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 20,11,358 under section 40(a)(ia). 24. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The Id. AR submitted that in the present case

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

query "Business Reorganization (a).......(b) In case of amalgamated company, write the name of amalgamating company" the reply mentioned was "NOT APPLICABLE". The appeal before the Tribunal was also filed in the name of amalgamating company. It was on these facts that the Supreme Court observed that since the amalgamating

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5740/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24