← 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

Samir Pravinchandra Panwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4), Surat

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 820/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.820/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Samir Pravinichandra Panwala Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ 35, Keval Nagar Society, Opp. 1(2)(4), Surat, Room No.119, Vs. Water Hills Residency, Vip Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Road, Althan, Surat-395 017 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpp 0124 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Rs.16,99,999/-. ITA No.820/SRT/2023/AY.17-18 Samir P Panwala 4. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) filed two paper books and submitted that assessee maintains completed books of account, which were produced before

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 575/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Accordingly, he dismissed the grounds and appeal of the assessee. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR at the outset, submitted that the appeal ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala is squarely covered by the decision

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 574/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Accordingly, he dismissed the grounds and appeal of the assessee. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR at the outset, submitted that the appeal ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala is squarely covered by the decision

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 573/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Accordingly, he dismissed the grounds and appeal of the assessee. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR at the outset, submitted that the appeal ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala is squarely covered by the decision

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 572/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Accordingly, he dismissed the grounds and appeal of the assessee. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR at the outset, submitted that the appeal ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala is squarely covered by the decision

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 571/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Accordingly, he dismissed the grounds and appeal of the assessee. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR at the outset, submitted that the appeal ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala is squarely covered by the decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Surat vs. Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Surat

In the result, deletion of unsecured loan of Rs

ITA 391/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.391/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Vs. 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

Rs.13,000/- as against addition of Rs.1,13,500/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) both Revenue and assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue strongly supported the order of AO. He submitted that information regarding bogus loan from 38 parties were

Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Surat vs. Assistant Registrar, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, deletion of unsecured loan of Rs

ITA 312/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.391/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Vs. 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.312/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) Bharatbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Hans Society, Varachha Road, Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Varachha, Surat-395 006 Surat, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aatyakar Bhawan, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afmpk 5646 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68

Rs.13,000/- as against addition of Rs.1,13,500/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) both Revenue and assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue strongly supported the order of AO. He submitted that information regarding bogus loan from 38 parties were

Arif Munir, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-(2)(1)(2), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arif Munir V. The Ito(2)(1)(2) 13/397, Vip Road Kanpur Near Green Park Civil Lines, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afjpm1226J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 03 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.02.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 30.07.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,92,280/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, In Response To The Queries Raised By The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Submission On Behalf Of The Assessee Was That Rs.2,44,000/- Was Deposited In His Bank Account Maintained With Hdfc Bank Limited Out Of His & His Wife’S Past Savings. Not Being Satisfied With The Reply Furnished

For Appellant: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271ASection 69ASection 80C

ground. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 245 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 03.01.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein

Solapur Siddheshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Solapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Solapur

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

ITA 194/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 40

dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order has been passed by the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) due to non-prosecution

M/S Balaji Developers, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 96

going through the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in not presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. We therefore condone the delay of 60 days in filing this appeal and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 4. Assessee has raised ... appeal filed against the order u/s.143(3) of the Act for the AY 2016-17 is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the extract of relevant provisions of RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 and the contents of section

Annapurna Nagari Sahkari Pathsanstha Maryadit Yawal, Yawal vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2471/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2471/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been taken into consideration. The grounds of appeal raised in the appeal need not to be adjudicated. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the impugned order by raising the following grounds : “On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming

Hinjewadi Cultural Association, Pune vs. CIT-Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2465/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2464 & 2465/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : N.A. Hinjewadi Cultural Association, V The Commissioner Of Blue Ridge Township, Tower-2, S Income Flat-1501, Hinjewadi Phase-1, Tax(Exemption), Pune. Rajiv Gandhi National Park, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aadah9057Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A & U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively.

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

earlier under section 12AB of the Act. ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 4. Aggrieved with such order of ld.CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before this Tribunal, the ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that necessary compliance could not be made before the ld.CIT(E) And therefore

Hinjewadi Cultural Association, Pune vs. CIT (E), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2464/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2464 & 2465/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : N.A. Hinjewadi Cultural Association, V The Commissioner Of Blue Ridge Township, Tower-2, S Income Flat-1501, Hinjewadi Phase-1, Tax(Exemption), Pune. Rajiv Gandhi National Park, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aadah9057Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A & U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively.

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

earlier under section 12AB of the Act. ITA Nos.2464 & 2465/PUN/2024 [A] 4. Aggrieved with such order of ld.CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before this Tribunal, the ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that necessary compliance could not be made before the ld.CIT(E) And therefore

I M C of Govt Industrial Training Institute Jath, Sangli vs. CIT (E), Pune

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

ITA 1499/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1499/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Amol KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12A

u/s.12AA of the Act. 2. At the outset, we find that the appeal is barred by limitation by 62 days in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. An affidavit has been filed by the Ex-officio Member of Managing Committee of the appellant explaining the reasonable cause which prevented ... going through the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that there was ‘reasonable cause’ for the appellant in not presenting the appeal before the Tribunal within the time. We 4 IMC of Govt. Industrial Training Institute Jath therefore condone the delay of 62 days in filing this appeal

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aurangbad vs. Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1339/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1339/Pun/2024

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271DSection 69D

transaction between the assessee and late Shri Radheshyam Agrawal was in the nature of a business transaction. 8. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding of the 1d.CIT(A) deleting the addition on merits by raising the following grounds : “1. On the facts

Ramulu Manthri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 5/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri VVS Ankith, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

short the “NFAC”] Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. At the very outset, delay of 01 day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned in light of assessee’s 2 ITA.No.5/Hyd/2025 submissions before the Tribunal during the course of hearing and the appeal ... Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri VVS. Ankith, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining the addition

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Amr India Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Cross Objection No

ITA 535/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

Instruction No.1 of 2023 of the CBDT.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Learned CIT-DR Ms. M. Narmada submitted that that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer ... Rayon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. 15. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Learned CIT-DR Ms. M. Narmada submitted that that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Amr India Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Cross Objection No

ITA 534/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

Instruction No.1 of 2023 of the CBDT.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Learned CIT-DR Ms. M. Narmada submitted that that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer ... Rayon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. 15. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Learned CIT-DR Ms. M. Narmada submitted that that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made

Singirikonda Pradeep Kumar, Suryapet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 69A

very same bank account on earlier occasions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to bank account statement held with State Bank of India [“SBI”] submitted that the assessee has withdrawn