← 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

The Mes Employees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 2531/PUN/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri M R BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

relevant grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

Seva Samajik Vikas Sanstha, Satara vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2326/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraseva Samajit Vikas Sanstha Satara Cit (Exemption), Pune 13, Shrinagar Colony, Koregaon Road, Vs. Sangamnagar, Satara – 415004 Pan: Aaxts1872M (Appellant) (Respondent) Seva Samajit Vikas Sanstha Satara Cit (Exemption), Pune 13, Shrinagar Colony, Koregaon Road, Vs. Sangamnagar, Satara – 415004 Pan: Aaxts1872M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yuvraj Hanmant Bhandvalkar Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, Cit Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Yuvraj Hanmant BhandvalkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Managing trustee of the assessee, who appeared personally, at the outset submitted that although the assessee filed various details before

Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust, Baramati vs. DCIT(Exemption Circle), Pune

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

ITA 2313/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust Dcit Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune Pan: Aants4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 148

rejection of the ground of appeal.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner

Sakshi Sanjay Mishra, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2312/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 68

decisions, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the first notice dated 26.11.2021 fixing the date of hearing

Randive Builders and Developers, Maharashtra vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1833/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(4)Section 154Section 69C

Rs.1,25,85,257/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether AO and CIT (A) both were justified in law in invoking section 69C of Income

Kolhapur Zilla Krishi Karmachari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1763/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 249Section 270ASection 80P

appeal.” 4 ITA No.1763/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 5. Dissatisfied with such order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterating the reasons stated in the affidavit

Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Deshmukh, Beed vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

Seema Sunil Bagul, Nashik vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1648/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, The Commissioner of Income

Seema Sunil Bagul, Nashik vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1647/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, The Commissioner of Income

Seema Sunil Bagul, Nashik vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1646/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, The Commissioner of Income

Randive Builders and Developers, Maharashtra vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1378/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(4)Section 154Section 69C

Rs.1,25,85,257/- u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether AO and CIT (A) both were justified in law in invoking section 69C of Income

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 603/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

grounds.” 4 ITA.Nos.601, 602 & 603/Hyd./2022 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals. We are satisfied with ... reasons explained by the assessee and accordingly, we condone the delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The brief acts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has filed his original return of income

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram, Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 602/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

grounds.” 4 ITA.Nos.601, 602 & 603/Hyd./2022 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals. We are satisfied with ... reasons explained by the assessee and accordingly, we condone the delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The brief acts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has filed his original return of income

(Late) Laxman Rao Banapuram Rep by L/R B Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

ITA 601/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 54F

grounds.” 4 ITA.Nos.601, 602 & 603/Hyd./2022 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals. We are satisfied with ... reasons explained by the assessee and accordingly, we condone the delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The brief acts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has filed his original return of income

ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. Subhlabh Steels Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata Subhlabh Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 202, 1, Vs British India Street, Kolkata- 700069. (Pan: Aaeca4597P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

r.w.s. 263 on 30.08.2018, which was the subject matter of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which is the impugned order in appeal before the Tribunal. It was fairly agreed by the Ld. CIT, DR that the order passed on 26.03.2016 was the subject matter of an appeal before

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

delay. However, by rejecting the condonation petition, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee duly submitted petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ... assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Since the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer under section

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 310/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

delay. However, by rejecting the condonation petition, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee duly submitted petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ... assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Since the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer under section

Venkoba Mahesh Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-9(2), Chennai

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

ITA 275/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 275/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Venkoba Mahesh Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Old No. 24, New No. 20, Vs. Corporate Ward - 9(2), Dr. Natesan Road, 3Rd Lane, Chennai. Triplicane, Chennai 600 005. [Pan: Aiipm-6975-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 68

Officer, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, submits that the ld. CIT(A) erroneously sustained the addition being the value of credit

The Central Government Staff Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 274/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:269, 270, 271, 272, 273 & 274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17& 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Central Government Staff Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-3(5), Limited, No. 4, Noor Veerasamy Street, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabat-8783-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri R. Ganesan, C.A. ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Six Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 11.12.2024 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 & Dated 10.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri R. Ganesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

accordingly, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. 7. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, by filing detailed written submissions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the fixed deposits received from ... operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are eligible for deduction. The contra consideration of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal is incorrect and liable to be modified as stated above. Hence, it is held that the interest income earned by the assessee does

The Central Government Staff Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 273/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:269, 270, 271, 272, 273 & 274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17& 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Central Government Staff Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-3(5), Limited, No. 4, Noor Veerasamy Street, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabat-8783-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri R. Ganesan, C.A. ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Six Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 11.12.2024 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 & Dated 10.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri R. Ganesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

accordingly, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. 7. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, by filing detailed written submissions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the fixed deposits received from ... operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are eligible for deduction. The contra consideration of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal is incorrect and liable to be modified as stated above. Hence, it is held that the interest income earned by the assessee does