“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

Audyogik Nidhi Vishwast Sanstha Poona, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune, Pmt Building

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

ITA 2135/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraaudyogik Nidhi Vishwast Sanstha The Cit (Exemption), Poona Pune 366, Narayan Peth, Limaye Vs. Building, Laxmi Road, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaata1619H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT erred

Muktadevi Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Gunjalwadi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1842/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1841 & 1842/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Muktadevi Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Gunjalwadi, At Post - Gunjalwadi, Taluka-Junnar, District - Pune 412401 Pan : Aaaam6151H अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Vs. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Vilas R. Jadhav & Priyanka V. Jadhav Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 04-02-2025 30-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Dated 02.07.2024 & 09.07.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2018-19 & 2020-21. For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been allowed partially, the alternate claims of deduction u/s.80P(2)(c) and u/s.57 are rendered infructuous. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits

Muktadevi Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Gunjalwadi, Pune vs. ITO Ward10(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1841/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been allowed partially, the alternate claims of deduction u/s.80P(2)(c) and u/s.57 are rendered infructuous. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submits

Ikka Learning Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 197/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA A Akhil YadavFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

being carried-out by the appellant trust. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(E), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 ITA.No.197/Hyd./2025 4. CA A. Akhil Yadav-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the Memorandum of Association of the appellant

Sayeed Ahmed Nalband, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 196/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Mohammad AmmarFor Respondent: MS. Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA Mohammad Ammar, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, adequate opportunity of hearing has not been provided by both the lower authorities

Mohammed Mannan Abdul, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

purchase of property as unexplained investment u/sec.69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned PCIT has erred in 5 ITA.No.249/Hyd./2024

ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Shakila Baig, Hyderabad

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

ITA 515/HYD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153C was also quashed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ms. M. Narmada, learned CIT-DR submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision

M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2453/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2453/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd.,……...………Appellant S.S. Chambers, 5, C.R. Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aabcb1875A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 30Th, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234B

assessee did not deserve to get the benefit of the provision of section 115BAA of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals

M/S. Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.(International Taxation), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.134/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) M/S Philips Electronics Vs Acit(International Taxation), Nederland B.V. Circle-2(1), Kolkata C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bengal Intelligent Park, Building Omega, 13Th& 14Th Floor, Block- Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronic Complex, Kolkata- 700091 Pan No. :Aafcp4361F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2022, Passed By The Acit, Circle-2(1), It, Kolkata Giving Effect To The Direction Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi(In Short The ‘Drp’), Dated 04.11.2022, Thereby Finalizing The Assessment Order In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Filed By The Assessee & Submitted That The Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Decided On The Following Additional Grounds Taken By The Assessee :-

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 90(2)

assessee at Rs.54,64,76,980/- and in consequence thereof issued demand notice u/s.156 of the Act. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4 4. As the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the finalization of the assessment by the TPO/Assessing Officer giving effect

Srinivasan Varatharaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 579/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.579/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srinivasan Varatharaj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Kandan Street, Perambur S.O., Income Tax, Perambur, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Avjps1866L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sricharan, Ca & : Ms. Srinithi, Advocate For Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 27 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We

For Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 194ISection 69

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri Sricharan, C.A. submits that the assessee is running a provision store/grocery store, which always generate cash sales

Arumugam Sivasankaran, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-4, Cuddaore

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

ITA 553/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Sivasankaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 160, National Agencies Ward 4, Main Road, Vasistapuram, Tittagudi, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 606 106. [Pan:Adqps5673J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 I.T.A. No.553/Chny/25 4. The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate submits that there is no prohibition to receive SBNs during demonetization period ... prohibition to accept and is permitted to deposit, addition cannot made. He submits that similar issue on identical facts was subject matter in appeal before this Tribunal in the case of Tamil Nadu State marketing Corporation ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No. 431/Chny/2023 dated 07.10.2024 and placing copy

M/S. India Garage, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 451/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. India Garage, Deputy Commissioner Of Income New No.199, Old No.143, Tax, Gove Building, Anna Road, Non-Corp Circle-7(1), Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaafi0929E]

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT

years 2018-19. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 33 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has informed that its business had closed down in September 2021 as result of which all the employees

Rajkanwar Kataria, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.441/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Mrs.Rajkanwar Kataria, Income Tax Officer, Tower No.4, Flat No.G-03, No.4,5,6 Non-Corporate Ward-10(5), North Town Estate, Binny Mills, Chennai. Stephenson Road, Jamlaia, Chennai-600 012. [Pan: Aalpk5671N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri M.Murugaboopathy, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri M.Murugaboopathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 234ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

years 2016-17 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 319 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is assisted by her accountant in the tax matters who in turn

V. Venkataraman HUF, Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 431/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.431/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 V.Venkataraman Huf Deputy Commissioner Of Income Represented By V. Kalavathy, Tax, W/O.Late V.Venkataraman, Non-Corporate Circle-2, No.25, Thillai Nagar, Sattur, Madurai. Virudhunagar Dist, Tamil Nadu-626 203. [Pan: Aachv5604B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sundar Raman, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sundar Raman, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT

years 2017-18 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 579 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is the present karta of HUF of her husband late V.Venkataraman who died

Jcr Traders, Keelamathur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Trichy, Trichy

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

ITA 333/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jcr Traders, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 2/117, Thittakudi Road, Income Tax, Keelamathur, Tamil Nadu 621 173. Circle 1(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aalfj6942K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 93 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 69

assessee for want of prosecution. 4 I.T.A. No.333/Chny/25 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We find that there is no assistance from the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the addition involved therein

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

both on merits as well on legal issues. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ("AO") has erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Medall Scans and Labs Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1114/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 133ASection 139

learned CIT(A) allowed all the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. Aggrieved from the above Order, the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR relied on the Order of AO and submitted that learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed all the grounds raised before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Clumax Diagnostics and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1110/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 133ASection 139

Pawankumar Fakirchand Gupta, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Delhi

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

ITA 919/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 919/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) Pawankumar Fakirchand V/S. Cit Appeal Gupta बिधम Delhi-110001 B-22, 28-30 Baroda Street, Carnac Bunder, Maharashtra-400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aenpg7957B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi

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

after noting that the assessee had failed to substantiate his claim. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available before us. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate

Pathare Prabhu Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 591/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Chapekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

earned from investments in cooperative bank after allowing the proportionate expenses and thus partly allowed the grounds of appeal. Aggrieved, assessee in in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The moot point before us is in respect of eligibility of deduction of Rs.29,58,400/- claimed u/s.80P(2)(d) in respect