← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 800/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Rajuri Ves, Beed – 431122, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaat5256C प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Shri Amol Khairnar 02-12-2024 21-02-2025 Per Astha Chandra, Jm : आदेश / Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders All Dated 28.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

account for all such amounts of interest on doubtful loans are uniformly given the benefit under 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following solitary ground of appeal : "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC erred ... Jurisdictional High Court, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed.” 12. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "01. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC erred

Sharad Ramgonda Patil, Sangli vs. I.T.O, Ward-1, Sangli

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

ITA 2566/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Capital Gains figure. APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), National ... NFAC. A perusal of the record shows that there is a delay of 235 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal. One of the reasons for such delay as mentioned in the condonation application that due to the death of the assessee on 27.12.2023, an appeal has been

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad vs. Aarthik Greentech Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Greentech Income Tax Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aalca6887D] आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.33/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Infra Projects Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aahca0719N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153C

Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Ms.Narmada, Ld.CIT-DR, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5

Shree Ram Trust Churu, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 858/KOL/2024[AY 20212025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

drawn against the assessee. The assessee has not availed the opportunity granted by the Ld. CIT (Exemption) and has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The only ground taken by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT (Exemption) erred in failing to grant registration only on a mechanical

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Adarsh Heights Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1949/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 253Section 270A

allowed the appeal of the assessee deleting the penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the appeal order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: “The appellant has filed appeal against the order of the A.O. in levying

Rajvidyalaya Educational Trust, Kuttalam vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trichy

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3108/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3108/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Rajvidyalaya Educational Trust, Income Tax Officer No.23, Uthira North Car Street, Exemption Ward, Kuttalam Trichy. Tamil Nadu-609 801. [Pan: Aabtr8546H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21..02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.G.Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271A

No.3108 /Chny/2024 :- 2 -: 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 66 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is charitable trust and not conversant with electronic working of the department

Kadersa Mohamed Dhawudu Mohamed Shafiq, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 3076/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3076/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Kadersa Mohamed Dhawudu Mohamed The Income Tax, Shafiq, Ward-1(1), No.22, Thiagambrahmam Street, Salem. Subramania Nagar, Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 005. [Pan: Agapm4288Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. A.Nikitha, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr. A.Nikitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

been noted that there is a delay of 447 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not comfortable with technology and not conversant with electronic working of the tax authorities. It was also submitted

Hotel Ganesh Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3075/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3075/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hotel Ganesh Private Limited Income Tax Officer No.-F-58, 4Th Street, Corporate Ward-2(3) Anna Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Aaach0880Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms. A.Nikitha, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms. A.Nikitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

No.3075 /Chny/2024 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 39 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is Director of a company into Hotel business. It was submitted that the delay

Late Vinaitheerthan Sockalingam, L/R. K. Sigappi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 3074/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3074/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Late Vinaitheerthan Sockalingam, Income Tax Officer By L/R K.Sigappi, Ward-1(2), Flat 4C, Kences Sarojini Apts., Trichy. 7/4, Lodikhan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aqdps4124L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.K.Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

been noted that there is a delay of three months and 22 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has submitted that she is one of the legal heirs of her father who was suffering from various ailments and ultimately

Karuppannasamai Rajasekaran, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ncw-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 3070/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3070/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Karuppannasami Rajasekaran, The Income Tax, No.E3, Ishwaryam Apartments, Non-Corporate Ward-1, Block Ii, Gandhiji Nagar, Dindigul Trichy Road, Dindigul Tamil Nadu-624 005. [Pan: Asupr2676M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Anandd Babunath, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr. Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

No.3070 /Chny/2024 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 277 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not conversant with electronic working of the tax authorities. It was also submitted

Dhananjay Sanjiv Rawal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 17(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 39/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhananjay Rawal, ARFor Respondent: 11.02.2025
Section 143(1)

same is not reflected in Form 26AS filed by the payer. 3. There is a considerable delay of 583 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard stating that the assessee being not aware of the process appellate remedy, instead ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 3 ITA No.39/Mum/2025 - Dhananjay Sanjiv

Minakshi Singh, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6648/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6648/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12

follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

Jamshed R Bilimoria, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6066/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jamshed R Bilimoria, Ito Range 19(1)(5), C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Room No. 602, 6Th Floor Piramal Vs. 2Nd Floor, Esplanade House 29 Chambers Lalbaug, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aappb 8124 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M M GolvalaFor Respondent: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DR
Section 161(1)Section 199

provisions of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee and allow as per the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard rival submiss We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused ions

Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri, Navi Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Navi Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 4499/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 115BSection 131Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 69A

action of the AO is upheld and the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal ... submitted that electronically assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal on 16/08/2024, which was well within the due date of filing the appeal. However, there was an inadvertent error that crept in, wherein the jurisdictional assessing officer was treated as stationed at Delhi instead of Mumbai. The Ld.AR submitted that

ACIT CC-3, Thane vs. Premier Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly

ITA 4451/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Premier Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-3, 3Rd Floor, D Wing Thane Vs Amerchand Mansion, 16 Madam Cama Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400039 (Pan : Aahcp1350N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi Advocate & Shri Pratik Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri R. A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi Advocate, and Shri Pratik Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 194CSection 40A(3)

vide order dated 14/06/2024 allowed the Assessee’s appeal in toto. H Being aggrieved, the Department is in appeal before the Tribunal in this appeal. 4.1. From the above chronology, most clinching fact in the context of present appeal is that search and seizure operation u/s.132 were carried ... question raised before us is not an independent issue. Rule 27 cannot be read in a restrictive manner, such that subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal should be confined only to the extent of grounds urged by the appellant. Subject matter in appeal is to be comprehended

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Panatone Finvest Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3249/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-2(2)(1), Panatone Finvest Ltd., R No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar House 24 Homi Mody Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai G.P.O.-400001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacp 9523 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sukhsagar Syal
Section 1Section 10Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(1)

prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes it of Rs.60 lakhs prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for preferring appeal before the Tribunal vide its Circular (CBDT) for preferring appeal before the Tribunal vide its Circular (CBDT) for preferring appeal before the Tribunal vide its Circular

Aarti Sudarshan Soni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3233/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Adv. & NilamFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 69

whom summons were issued did not appear before the AO. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal before ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

ITO, Ward 4 vs. Flora Exports

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1226/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

submissions, sustained the finding of the AD and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed depreciation on the intangible assets and the issue is squarely covered

Gajanan Ferro Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 86/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

raised similar grounds of appeal. We also find that in these appeals, there is also a delay of 1 day in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The facts of these appeals are common to the facts and grounds as raised in ITA No. 84/Ran/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13, which ... penalty. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, the delay of one day in filing of appeals before the Tribunal are condoned and these appeals of assessee are also allowed with similar direction. In the result, grounds of assessee’s appeals are allowed

Gajanan Ferro Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 85/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

raised similar grounds of appeal. We also find that in these appeals, there is also a delay of 1 day in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The facts of these appeals are common to the facts and grounds as raised in ITA No. 84/Ran/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13, which ... penalty. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, the delay of one day in filing of appeals before the Tribunal are condoned and these appeals of assessee are also allowed with similar direction. In the result, grounds of assessee’s appeals are allowed