← 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

ITO, Delhi vs. Varun Manchanda, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2278/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Varun Arya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Varun Manchanda CIT(A). After considering assessee’s submissions, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ground No. 1: Addition of Cash Gifts u/s 56(2) [Rs. 10,43,998/-] Brief facts are that in respect of cash ... Varun Manchanda Ld. AO of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- was deleted. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.2 After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the details/documents placed before us, we are of the considered view that

Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Cricle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

vide order dated 16.04.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of CIT(A) is bad both

Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

vide order dated 16.04.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of CIT(A) is bad both

Sh.Sanjay Rawat, Dehradun vs. ACIT, Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271

vide order dated 16.04.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of CIT(A) is bad both

Paramjot Kaur, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 995/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 995/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Paramjot Kaur, The Ito, 2208, Phase Vii, बनाम Chandigarh Sector 61, Vs. Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. Aiapk8703A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Harish Nayyar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am :

For Appellant: Sh. Harish Nayyar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 220 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of 995-Chd-2025 2 the Assessee, making prayer

State Bank of India Local Head Office Chandigarh, Chandigarh vs. Addl Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 133(6)Section 192Section 271C

penalty levied under section 271C and dismissed the appeal. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of the hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the orders

Home Construction Co, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 615/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271A

assessed income was determined at Rs. 1, 19,68,240/-. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee argued that the assessee is a group concern of M/s Homelife

Gopal Krishan Bansal, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. ITO Ward -1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Sirhind

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed and cross appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 614/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149

assessment order and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Against the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us since the additional ground of appeal goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer

Income Tax Office, Ward-I Mandi Gobindgarh Hq Sirhind vs. Gopal Krishan Bansal, Aggarwal Steel Tubes

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed and cross appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 478/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149

assessment order and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Against the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us since the additional ground of appeal goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer

Hare Rama Hare Krishna Fighter Club, Ambala vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

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

ITA 460/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 460/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Hare Rama Hare The Cit, Exemptions, Krishna Fighter Club, बनाम Chandigarh Anaj Mandi, Vs. Ambala Cantt 134003 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaaah3048J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ac)

time of hearing of case. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 147 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay

Emmbros Autocomp Limited, Baddi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Parwanoo

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

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1172/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Emmbros Autocomp The Acit, बनाम Limited, Village Katha, Circle, Baddi, Parwanoo Vs. Distt. Solan 173220 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaace3489Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Raman Tiwari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 801CSection 80I

time of hearing. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 2 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the 1172-Chd-2024 4 Assessee, making prayer for condonation

Rohini Gautambhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward - 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1946/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 91

assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No.1 4. The assessee has claimed Rs.45,148/- being the donation given to an eligible trust and claimed deduction under Chapter

St George Orthodox Syrian Church Chinchwad, Pune vs. CIT (E), Pune

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

ITA 2708/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2708/Pun/2025 St. George Orthodox Syrian Vs. Cit (Exemption) Church, Pune S.No.35/3/1, Dattawadi, Akurdi, Pune 411035 Maharashtra Pan : Aarts3501P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.S. RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 322 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Appellant has filed an affidavit explaining the delay and relevant contents are reproduced below: “I, St George Orthodox Syrian Church Chinchwad through 50 Years, Residing

ACIT Circle-12, Pune vs. Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam, Pune

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

ITA 1375/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) justified inholding

Guhana Educational Society, Suryapet vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 784/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.784/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Guhana Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 2-1-65, Kasturi Bazar Exemption Ward-1(2) Suryapet-508213 Aayakar Bhavan Telangana Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Telangana Pan: Aaaag5294R (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Guhana Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Mumbai (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dated 13.03.2025 For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law; 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Account & In Resorting To Estimation Of Income At 8% Of The Receipts Of Rs.2,58,90,677/-;

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Page 2 of 8 ITA 784/Hyd/2025 Guhana Educational Society Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the solitary issue involved

Bandreddy Bandla Reddy, Pulivendula vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kadapa

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

ITA 506/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.506/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Bandreddy Bandla The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Pulivendula. Ward-1, Pin – 516 390. Vs. Kadapa – 516 390. Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan Apzpb2735D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ms S Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: MS S Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 281(1)(b)

assessment year 2015-2016. 2 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee ... learned DR on the other hand has submitted that this is an inordinate delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The medical record shows that the assessee has shown ignorance and negligence to file the appeal before the Tribunal as well as before the learned

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Il & Fs Engineering & Constructions Co. Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 129/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Releasing The Contract Charges To The Account Of The Assessee.

Section 194ASection 194CSection 37Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 4OSection 69C

Engineering & Constructions Co.Ltd. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came up for consideration from the appeal filed by the assessee is disallowance of cash payments

Il & Fs Engineering and Construction Company Limited(Formerly Maytas Infra Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1886/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Releasing The Contract Charges To The Account Of The Assessee.

Section 194ASection 194CSection 37Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 4OSection 69C

Engineering & Constructions Co.Ltd. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came up for consideration from the appeal filed by the assessee is disallowance of cash payments

Nikhil Banga Kalyan Samity, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 2807/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 10.11.2025. 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 Ld. CIT(A) ought ... result, the appeal stands dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that though the audit report was filed late on Form

Newage Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2307/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 08.08.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the action of the Assessing ... confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that section 56(2)(viia