“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

Delicatessen Engineering Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 835/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.835/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Delicatessen Vs. Dy. Cit. Engineering Services Circle- 8(1), Private Hyderabad Limited,Hyderabad Pan:Aagcd8678N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Dated,18/07/2024, In Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp-1 Bengaluru, Dated 26/02/2024 U/S 144C(5) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Relating To A.Y.2020-21. Page 1 Of 32

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

providing engineering design services. Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Ground Nos.1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature and thus, not adjudicated. Page

Gowri Shankar Gupta, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 514/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen, DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 294Section 69A

Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee that the receipt of Rs.51,864 be assessed as income from house property. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has considered the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Kanak Investments

Paschim Nawpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward - 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.39/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Paschim Nawpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited...….……….Appellant Nawpara, Noapara B.O. Paschim Noapara, Nadia, 741255, W.B. [Pan: Aadap3765F] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Nadia…………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. K. Ray, R.C. Halder & Trideep Nayak, Advocates, 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 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 24.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed 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 282 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 Are 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 Assessing Officer Received Information Regarding Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee During The Period Of Demonetization I.E. From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016 Amounting To Rs.2,46,000/- & Rs.8,48,500/- Maintained With Nadia District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Ranaghat Branch, Nadia & Rs.2,19,500/-

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 282 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 are bona ... dismissing the appeal of the assessee without examining the merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. However, at the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without appreciating

Sanjay Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi, Kolkata

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

ITA 985/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

assessee has been dismissed by observing that AR has refrained from participating in appellate proceedings. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied assessee preferred appeal before the tribunal. 5. On perusal of the order of AO, we find that the during assessment proceedings assessee failed to furnish any information with respect

Ideal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1344/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 31.12.2016. I.T.A. No.: 1344/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ideal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing ... filed by the appellant is treated as "dismissed".” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 1344/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ideal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made

ACIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Crystal Impex Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 985/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.985/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Acit, Vs. Crystal Impex Ltd., Circle – 5(1)(1), Gr. Floor, My Home Apartment, Mumbai V. N. Malik X Laten, Forjeet, Gawalia Tank, Mumbai - 400036 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac1264F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ketal Vajani, Ar Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 68

made. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed by the CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue relied on the order of AO. He submitted that the case

Sapat International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 8(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1961/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1961/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) Sapat International Pvt. V/S. Circle 8(1)(1), Aayakar Ltd. बिधम Bhavan, Churchgate, 102/103, T.V. Industrial, Mumbai-400020 Estate, Behind Glaxo Lab, 248/A, S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Maharashtra- 400030 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs7337P Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Parag ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dyani

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

deduction of Rs. 54,00,000/- claimed u/s 80G was not admissible. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has pointed out that even though no discussion has been made in the assessment order regarding verification

Chancellor Court Co-Operative Housing Society, Malbar Hill vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1888/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1887 & 1888/Mum/2025 Assessment Years: (2018-19 & 2019-20) (Physical Hearing) Chancellor Court Co-Operative Housing Vs. Addl./Jcit(A) – 5, Society, Kolkata C.S. No.1/722, Malabar Hill Division, A-88, Carmaichael Road, M.1, Dahanukar Marg , Mumbai - 400028 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac1264F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ar Respondent By Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

mismatches and mistakes of reporting figures in different columns of ITR. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Though the appellant has raised six grounds of appeal, they are inter- connected and pertaining to addition of Rs.8,00,142/-. The learned Authorized

Chancellor Court Co-Operative Housing Society, Malbar Hill vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1887/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

Sudesh Ramchandra Kasar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6878/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6878/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Sudesh Ramchandra Kasar V/S. Ito – 42(1)(5) Room No. 04, M H Chawl, बिधम Room No. 734, 7Th Floor, Hanuman Tekadi Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Kajupada, Borivali (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aigpk2873B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 148Section 250Section 68

grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 03.07.2024. 6. Thereafter, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. AR has explained before us that the assessee’s case was not properly handled as the chartered accountant was working

Mulund Samata Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6432/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh Patare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 3Section 5Section 80P(2)(d)

resulting into genuine hardship.”. 3. There is a delay of 33 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition and affidavit for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same ... appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed it owing to appeal barred by limitation. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The moot point before us is in respect of eligibility of deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned by the assessee from

ACIT, 20(1), Mumbai vs. Indu Mahendra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4858/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4858/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Acit, 20(1), V/S. Indu Mahendra Shah Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, बिधम 601, Harbour Crest Bldg, Piramal Chambers 6Th Floor, Mazzgaon, Lalbaug, Maharashtra- Maharashtra-400010 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alrps2482C Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Tejas ChandaranaFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

crores is deleted. Accordingly, appeal on this ground is ALLOWED.” 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld as Ld. AO has nowhere established

The District Magistrate, Badaun vs. ITO (TDS), Moradabad

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

ITA 4775/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year : 2010-11 The District Magistrate, Badaun, Vs. Ito (Tds), Collectorate Compound, Badaun, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh – 243601 Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Pan: Lknd0606E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.01.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Moradabad. 2. In This Case, Order Dated 31.03.2017 Was Passed U/S. 206C(6A) Of The Act By The Ito-Tds, Moradabad For The Assessment Year 2010-11 By Imposing The Total Tax Liability Of Rs. 8,13,688/- & Assessed The Income On The Same Amount. In Appeal, There Is A Delay Of 350 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Ld. Cit(A) Noted The Following Submission Of The Assessee:- “There Was A Delay Of 350 Days & It Was Due To The Fact That Order Was Served On D.M. Office & Which Was Not Conveyed To Mining Officer Mr. Narender Kumar. It Came To His Knowledge In September, 2017 & Due To The Fact That The Time Was Consumed In Empanelment & Appointment Of Counsel. That Further The Delay Was Due To The Procedure Of Online Registration For Filing Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 206C

convinced, did not condone the delay by dismissing the appeal being time barred. 4. Against the above order, assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice of hearing, hence, we are proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing

Srikanth Atluri, Vijayawada vs. Income Txa Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.491/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Srikanth Atluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 30-13/1-18, Durgaagraharam Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpa5568H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 154Section 250Section 90

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 51 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee being

St. Antonys Friary, Kollam vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 293/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Ivan Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 11Section 143(1)

holding that the appellant had filed the audit report in Form 10B instead of Form 10BB. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. 5. The learned Senior DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. I heard the learned Senior

Kunhi Purayil Aravindhakshan, Ksasargod vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kasargod

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

ITA 213/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Sreehari A.C., CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 250

hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2018-2019. 2. There is a delay of 29 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay and a supporting affidavit stating the reasons for late filing of this appeal. 2 ITA No.213/Coch/2025. Sri.Kunhi

Kunhikoran. M.V., Kasaragod vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kannur

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

ITA 539/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Suresh Kumar C, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

entire contract receipts is correct. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had mistakenly filed return in ITR 4, which is applicable for presumptive taxation u/s.44AD of the Act. However

The United Club, Koratty South vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 427/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

hereby dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax Authorities and relied on the grounds raised. 6. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order

Jacob Thomas, Kozhencherry vs. ACIT, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 136/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

remand report that the appellant failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that during the course of proceedings before he CIT(A) the appellant

Jacob Thomas, Kozhencherry vs. ACIT, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 135/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68