← 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

Srinivas Reddy Yedla, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 53/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

come to the assessee’s notice in the month of August, 2024, and he was contemplating entrusting the matter for filing of an appeal before the Tribunal to a counsel preferably based at Hyderabad, but during the said period having suffered a fracture had remained busy seeking medical treatment

Mahesh Yadav Alam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 406/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 69

submitted that the assessee on learning about the dismissal of his appeal had without any further loss of time preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal which by the time involved a delay of 8 days. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay involved in filing the present appeal

Mahesh Yadav Alam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in

ITA 405/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 69

submitted that the assessee on learning about the dismissal of his appeal had without any further loss of time preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal which by the time involved a delay of 8 days. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay involved in filing the present appeal

Vasantha Laxmi Veerapaneni, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1246/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K HanmandlooFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 154

returned Rs.3,28,810/-in Income Computation Sheet.” 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 25 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. We are satisfied with the reasons furnished ... assessee. We, therefore, condone the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as under. 4. In this case, assessment u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act”] for the assessment year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle1-(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Vpr Mining Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

ITA 90/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri S K Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 153A

urged at the time of hearing." 3. At the very outset, there is a delay of 51 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The learned CIT-DR has filed a petition for condonation of delay contending, inter alia, that the delay has been occurred due to administrative ... Learned DR has not raised any objection. 5. We are satisfied with the reasons explained by the Learned DR in filing the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 51 days. We, therefore, condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex- parte thus the assessee preferred appeal before the tribunal in the present case. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals: “1. That

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4852/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex- parte thus the assessee preferred appeal before the tribunal in the present case. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals: “1. That

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cicle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 4850/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

identity and the creditworthiness of the parties and therefore, no addition could be made. 7. Against such order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

Mukeshbhai Karshanbhai Baflipara, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 683/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.683/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Mukeshbhai Karshanbhai Baflipara Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ D/801,Shiv Plaza Apartment, 3(3)(1), Surat, Adajan, Near Vs. Gadhpur Township Road, Nr. Gas Circle, Surat-395001 Sarthana Jakat Naka, Varachha Road, Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aixpb 2114 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Manish Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/04/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

made by the AO in the assessment order. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of appellant submitted that in the business of trading of agricultural produce (groundnut) in the capacity of commission agent

Harikrishna Jewels, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

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

ITA 354/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Court Hearing) Harikrishna Jewels, Principal Commissioner Of 201, Sunstar Building, Opp. बनाम/ Income Tax-1,, Surat, Room New Patidar Bhavan, No.123, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil 003 Hospital, Surat -395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfh 3864 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

making disallowance of Rs.5,51,33,350/-. The appellant submitted that the regular tax consultant was unaware of the provisions of direct appeal before the Tribunal against the order u/s 263 of the Act. When the appellant approached a new tax consultant, he advised not only to file appeal before ... filing the appeal was not deliberate and intentional on the part of assessee. The regular tax consultant was not aware of direct appeal to the Tribunal against order u/s 263 of the Act. Moreover, assessee is not going to be benefited by filing appeal belatedly. It is now fairly settled

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Siddhi Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1468/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 68

deleted both the additions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and, with regard to the addition made by the Assessing Officer

Kishore Kumar Raju Muppala, Chittoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Chittoor

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 107/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 69A

Rs.13,83,500/- made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the addition of Rs.13,83,500/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A). 6. During the course

Virender Singh, Haryana vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1880/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1880/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2012-13) Virender Singh, H. No. 1966, Sector-4, Rewari, Haryana 123401 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bcpps-8061-K बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Rewari, Haryana अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vikas Mishra, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 15/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 22.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri Vikas Mishra, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is Serving In Indo Tibetan Border Police (Itbp). The Case Of The Assesseee For Ay 2012-13 Was Reopened On The Ground That He Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.15,38,000/- During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year 2012-13 In His Bank Account Maintained With State Bank Of India & No Income Tax Return For The 2 Relevant Period Was Filed By The Assessee. During Proceedings Before The Cit(A), The Assessee Explained The Source Of The Cash Deposits. The Cit(A) Partly Accepted Explanation Furnished By The Assessee & Deleted Addition To The Extent Of Rs.7,36,500/- & Confirmed The Remaining Amount Of Rs.8,01,500/- On Presumptive & Estimated Basis. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Addition Confirmed By The Cit(A). The Ld. Counsel Submits That During The Relevant Period, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash In Bank On Five Dates As Under:- S.No Date Deposits 1 31.05.2011 49000 2 01.06.2011 49000 3 03.06.2011 500000 4 10.12.2011 150000 5(A) 28.03.2012 500000 5(B) 28.03.2012 290000

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Mishra, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.7,36,500/-. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal seeking relief on the amount confirmed by the CIT(A) i.e. Rs.8,01,500/- After having perused the impugned order

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta, Walkeshwar vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 679/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir Of Acit 19(1), Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta, Piramal Chambers Vs. 51 Anupam Society, Manav Mandir Mumbai-400012. Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Aacpm 4426 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, CA a/wFor Respondent: 25/03/2025
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 147

merit of the addition. assessee on merit of the addition. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal be Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way fore the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced as reproduced above. 5. With reference to ground

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

merits. The DRP rejected the objections raised by the assessee on both legal as well as on merits. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. Though the assessee has raised several

DCIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Hanubhai R Sangani, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

appeal of the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT vs. Shri Hanubhai R Sangani Page 3 of 5 Department went to appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as per law tax effect vide order dated 29.01.2019. The Department filed Special Civil

Avishkar Shikshan Sanstha, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 630/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2024-25 Avishkar Shikshan Sanstha, Nashik Cit (Exemption), Pune C/O Sushila K. Thakur, “Krishnakalp”, Vs. P&T Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422001 Pan: Aaata6707C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Charuhas D Upasani Department By : Shri M.M. Chate Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas D UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Chate
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. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income (Exemption), Pune

Godavari Shikshan Mandal, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 629/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2024-25 Godavari Shikshan Mandal, Nashik Cit (Exemption), Pune G.D. Sawant Arts, Commerce & Bcs Vs. College, Suchita Nagar, Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik - 422009 Pan: Aaatg3326R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Charuhas D Upasani Department By : Shri M.M. Chate Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas D UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Chate
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee 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 Hon'ble Commissioner

Nirmal Foundation, Nashik vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 627/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas D UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Chate
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. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income (Exemption), Pune

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 975/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1387 & 975/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, Acit(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs. Pan : Aaatm2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 16-01-2025 Date Of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 22.04.2024 & 12.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 2(15)

assessment order total income as per re-casted Income & Expenditure amounting to Rs.157807810 is confirmed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has been regularly filing its return of income