← 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 Central Government Staff Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp. Ward 3(5) Che, Chennai

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

ITA 272/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

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, Non Corp. Ward 3(5) Che, Chennai

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

ITA 271/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

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 Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 270/CHNY/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-2014

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, Non Corp. Ward 3(5) Che, Chennai

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

ITA 269/CHNY/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

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

M/S Manisha Rubber Enterprises, Mulund West vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai, Bandra East

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

ITA 454/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 454/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Manisha Rubber V/S. Ito, Ward 41(2)(3), Enterprises बिधम Mumbai 50, Unique Industrial Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Estate, Dr. R. P. Road, 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mulund (W), Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400080 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafm6198D Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

could not successfully demonstrate any reasonable cause for the substantial delay. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, the assessee had filed the appeal in physical

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5721/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Strides Pharma Science Limited V/S. Ito 15(3)(2), बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, New 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Blrs03808A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 20.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

dated 06.09.2024, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal taking as many as 11 grounds which are discussed below: Ground No. 1 is general 6. 7. Ground No. 2: Disallowance of ESOP ... assessee has made a claim for deduction u/s 35DD of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the first time at the stage of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been submitted by the Ld. AR that this claim has been allowed by the Ld. AO from AY 2017-18 onwards

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent)

Section 143(3)

assessee at Rs.132,78,88,740/- by the AO in the final order of assessment dated 30.01.2015. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the majority of the grounds raised

Dongkuk Steel India Private Limited, Greater Noida vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 68

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.542 to 545 & 1727/Del/2022 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the additions

Classone Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5142/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalito, Ward-6(2) Class One Exports New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Flat No.10, C ½ Model Town, Delhi-110009 Pan: Aaacc3806H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Kumar, Employee Of Company Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/02/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 In Appeal No.10647/16-17 Dated 12.03.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Shares & Securities. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.09.2014 Declared Nil Income Which Stood Processed. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Class One Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Wherein The Income Under The Head Of Business In Profession Was Estimated On The Turnover Of Rs.31,28,79,852/- By Applying Profit Rate Of 2% & Net Addition Of Rs.62,57,597/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Assessee. Against Such Order The Appeal Was Filed Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thus, The Assessee Has Preferred The Appeal Before The Tribunal By Taking Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Assessment Order & The Appeal Order Passed By Cit As Well As By Ito Is Bad Both On Facts & In The Eyes Of Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

such order the appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “That on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order and the appeal order passed

Raj Kamal Verma, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.199/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Raj Kamal Verma Flat No. 1401, Tower-12, Sun World, Vanalika, Sector-107, Noida, 31-Uttar Pradesh, 91-India, Pan: Abxpv5485A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10

disalloance of Rs.18,05,880/-. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have carefully considered the facts and submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and examined the documents available on record. This

Pasumarthi Chandrakanth, Kodad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri YV Bhanu Narayana RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 132Section 69A

read with u/sec.115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to assess