← 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

Soubhagya Sindhu Trust, Ananthapur vs. ITO., Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 1099/HYD/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed 2 ITA.No.1099/Hyd./2024 an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. We are satisfied with the delay reasons ... explained by the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly, the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and proceed the decide the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed an application

Gunavantraya, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1866/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Venkatesh V., D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, At the outset the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not submit any document/information/records in response

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4611/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

granting additional credit of TDS INR.29,30,368/- reflected in updated Form 26AS. 4.3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. 5. On perusal of grounds raised by the Revenue, we find that the Revenue ... Source (TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 19 above. 22. On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4610/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

granting additional credit of TDS INR.29,30,368/- reflected in updated Form 26AS. 4.3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. 5. On perusal of grounds raised by the Revenue, we find that the Revenue ... Source (TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 19 above. 22. On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4609/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

granting additional credit of TDS INR.29,30,368/- reflected in updated Form 26AS. 4.3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. 5. On perusal of grounds raised by the Revenue, we find that the Revenue ... Source (TDS) as reflected in Form 26AS. Being AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 19 above. 22. On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 22/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read

Padmawati Sewa Sanstha, Sneha Apartment vs. CIT(Exemption), Civic Centre

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 5165/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2024-25 Padmawati Sewa Sanstha Vs. Commissioner Of Income H.No. 14 Johriour Jagamba Tax( Exemption ) Delhi Colony Delhi -110094 Pan No. Aabap2210R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

also cancelled. 5. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(E) the assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR of the assessee has argued that the Ld. CIT (E) has wrongly cancelled the application and provisional registration without assigning any reasons. He has also submitted

Ashish Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2935/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2013-14 Carlsberg India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Tds Circle 4Th Floor, Rectangel No. 1, Gurugram, Commercial Complex, Haryana D-4, Saket, New Delhi – 17 (Pan: Aajcs8454J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)Section 250

Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. 3. It is noted that there is a delay of 1158 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is the contention of the Assessee that against the order passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) dated 31.03.2021, assessee preferred an appeal ... view of the factual matrix, I am fully satisfied that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in dispute and remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kuber Sucurities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 1412/DEL/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 250

vide impugned order dated 07.03.2023 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds of appeal are taken:- 1 “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Sober Ceramics, Morbi vs. ITO, Ward-4, Morbi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 131Section 14Section 143(3)

based on reopening under section 147 of the Act. In this order, the Department is not in appeal before the Tribunal, however, the addition was made by the assessing officer based on the findings of the Anti-Evasion Section, Central Excise Commissionerate, Rajkot, which were rejected/ reversed by the Customs

Shri Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi, Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT-Jamnagar, Jamnagar

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

ITA 150/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.150/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi The Pr.Cit C/O. Ca Govind Sonecha बनाम Jamanagar. "S&A House”, Nr.Golden City 80Ft. Road, Khodiyar Colony B/H. Saru Section Vs. Police Headquarters, Jamnagar. Pan : Aaqpg 8128 H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms.Amoli Gusani, Ld.Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Yadav, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini; By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamnagar [In Short 'Ld.Pr.Cit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), Dated 05.01.2024, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Died On 20.04.2021 & The Ld.Pr.Cit Issued Show -Cause Notice On 22.12.2023, Therefore, The Show Cause Notice Was Issued By The Ld.Pr.Cit, On The Dead Person, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit Should Be Quashed. Shri Mahmadhusen Salmanji Gandhi Vs. Pr.Cit

For Appellant: Ms.Amoli Gusani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Yadav, ld.CIT-DR
Section 263

death certificate of the assessee. However, the fact is that during the assessment proceedings as well as while filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the legal heir brought on record in form no.36 and the legal heir/representative signed the appeal memo of Form No.36. The ld.DR also took us through

Madhuben Narottambhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 967/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhuben Narottambhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ C/O Modern Furniture, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Brahman Faliya, Khergam Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Road, Chikhli, Navsari-396 521 Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bsppp 1158 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27/02/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Further aggrieved, appellant filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR for the assessee has strongly argued against the reopening and filed paper book. The Ld. AR argued that

Suzuki Motor Gujarat Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Principle Commissoner of Income Tax, Ahmedanad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 998/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

correct amount of depreciation and disallow the excess depreciation. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR relied on the computation declared in the return whereas the ld. DR relied on the order

Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (3), Pune

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

ITA 2789/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Manoj JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 54B

decide the appeal on merit. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal and confirming the addition of Rs.1

Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 2788/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Manoj JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 54B

decide the appeal on merit. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal and confirming the addition of Rs.1

Vidyarthi Vikas Mandal, Sangli vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2775/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT
Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

read with clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act . 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted the assessee filed compliance to the first notice but the second

Gram Urja Human Development Foundation, Ambajogai vs. CIT, Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2740/PUN/2024[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2739 & 2740/Pun/2024 Gram Urja Human Development Foundation, Gramurja Foundation, Vidyut Nagar, Morewadi, Ambajogai – 431517 Pan: Aaicg6193P अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Cit (Exemption), Pune Vs. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Amar Sabale & Adv. Rajdeep A. Dikonda Shri Amol Khairnar 13-01-2025 28-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 06.12.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 29.08.2024. These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

objects. Therefore, the undersigned has left no alternative but to reject the application." 3 ITA Nos.2739 & 2740/PUN/2024 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(E). As can be seen from ... section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected." Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : "1. The Id CIT Exemption erred in law and on facts in rejection of application

Gram Urja Human Development Foundation, Ambejogai vs. CIT, Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2739/PUN/2024[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2739 & 2740/Pun/2024 Gram Urja Human Development Foundation, Gramurja Foundation, Vidyut Nagar, Morewadi, Ambajogai – 431517 Pan: Aaicg6193P Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amar Sabale & Adv. Rajdeep A. Dikonda Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 13-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 06.12.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 29.08.2024. These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Order.

For Appellant: Shri Amar Sabale &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

purpose of achieving its objects. Therefore, the undersigned has left no alternative but to reject the application." 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(E). As can be seen from ... section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected." Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : "1. The Id CIT Exemption erred in law and on facts in rejection of application

Suresh Gulabchand Oswal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 2493/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

notice(s) of hearing issued to the assessee (para 5.2 and 5.3 of his appellate order refers). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and all teh grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the there was non-compliance of notices before

Shri Amardevi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2447/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nMS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2447/PUN/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nShri Amardevi Nagari Sahakari\nPatsanstha,\nShelarwadi, Post Dehu Road, Tal –\nHaveli, 412101\nVs.\nITO, Ward – 9(3),\nPune\nPAN: AABAS5274L\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nAssessee by :\nShri Nitin Rander (through\nvirtual)\nDepartment by :\nShri Ramnath P. Murkunde,\nDate of hearing :\n24-02-2025\nDate of\nPronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Rander (throughFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rs.29,05,409/- claimed in the return of income filed by the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer

Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Co Operative Soc., Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Offcier, NFAC, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2343/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

action of the Assessing Officer disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) is upheld.” 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 rightly claimed the deduction u/s. section