← 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

Doorvasachari Renu Kumar, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 3028/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C. Satish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 144Section 250

Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Unfortunately, the said consultant failed to guide me regarding the appropriate procedure and timelines for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. ii) Further, during this period and thereafter, I was preoccupied with the continuous medical treatment of my daughter, Ms.Sadhana Shree, my mother

Gandavarapu Sathyanarayana Reddy, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3014/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.Viswapadmanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Eswaran, JCIT
Section 144Section 250

been noted that there is a delay of 26 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is has been suffering from multiple health issues for a long time and hence could not devote requisite time

Karthikeyan, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-, Thanjavur

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

ITA 3009/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3009/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Karthikeyan, Income Tax Officer, No.1175, Mela Street, Vs. Ward-1, Sadaiyarkoil, Thanjavur. Thanjavur, Sadayarkoil B.O. Tamil Nadu-614 019. [Pan: Anupk0210B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Eswaran, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 24.01.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057309596(1) Dated 25.10.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013-14. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 25.10.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Eswaran, JCIT
Section 144Section 250

been noted that there is a delay of 331 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not very familiar with the electronic functioning and therefore could not check the income tax portal or registered

Vellaisamy Duraipandy, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-2(1), Madurai

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

ITA 3005/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3005/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vellaisamy Duraipandy, Income Tax Officer, No.70, Officers Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-2(1), Meenambalpuram, Madurai Madurai-625002. [Pan: Aebpd0632E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Eswaran, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 24.01.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064942814(1) Dated 16.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2018-19. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 16.05.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Eswaran, JCIT
Section 144Section 250

been noted that there is a delay of 127 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not very familiar with the electronic functioning and therefore could not check the income tax portal or registered

Cheers Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2418/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 43A

Hence action of the AO in disallowing depreciation is fully justified. Ground nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed. 6.1. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated various clauses and terms and conditions contained in the agreement entered into

Hemant V More, Kalyan vs. ACIT Central Circle-3 Thane, Thane

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

ITA 1956/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhrihemant V More V/S. Acit, Central Circle-3, Ravi Raj Apartment, बनाम Thane Khadakpada, Kalyan, Maharashtra-400604 Maharashtra-421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afwpm3020K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 229Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

penalty appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is noticed that with regard to the consolidated order

Kanhu Charan Couda, Nayagarh vs. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 481/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-2018 Kanhu Charan Kanhu Charan Gouda Vs. Ito,Khordha Rohibanka, Odagaon, Nayagarh, Odagaon, Nayagarh, Khordha-7520 752090 Pan/Gir No. No.Aubpg 5312 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. K. Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated Dated 26.4.2024 In In Appeal Appeal No. No. Nfac/201617/10307 Nfac/201617/10307110 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2018. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 144

Assessment Year : 2017-2018 assessee came to know about the appellate order, he immediately contacted his counsel to file the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, there was delay of 144 days. It is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and appeal be decided on merits

Pristine Jewellery, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 277/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.277/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Pristine Jewellery Vs. The Ito, Plot No.20, Midc B/H Khanna Ward-1(2)(4), House, Road No.6, Andheri East, Surat Mumbai-400 096 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifp6894R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Unmesh Dalal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2025

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

books of account audited. Hence, this appeal was also dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the notification/circular cannot override the Act. For this, he relied upon the decision in cases of Ganeshdas Khanna

Gitanjali Chaitanya Guram, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 269SSection 271D

During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has furnished a sworn affidavit–cum–application dated 18/01/2025, requesting the Bench for condoning ... being levied as penalty u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” The assessee being aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. The impugned transaction have been

Centre for Socio Economic Andenvironmental Studies, Padivattom, Kochi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kochi

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

ITA 201/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Centre For Socio Economic & .......... Appellant Environmenal Studies Iind Floor, Khadi Federation Building N.H. Byepass, Padivattom, Kochi 682024 [Pan: Aaaac1878P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Exemption Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that merely because the appellant is charging fees for the services rendered by it, does

Prabha Pal, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer Ward (2)1, Bareilly

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

ITA 731/LKW/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prabha Pal V. Income Tax Officer D-29, Indra Nagar Ward (2)1 Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bdapp6457N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there is a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Since the delay in filing the appeal was very nominal, the ld. D.R. had no objection to the delay being condoned. In view

Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 695/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Gupta V. Ito-2(1) 69/192, Chitvapur Lucknow Station Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akcpg5937A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44Section 44ASection 69A

grounds of appeal. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 89 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 02.12.2024 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate

Vishan Chandra Gupta S/O Salig Ram 56-Lajpat Nagar, Karamchari Nagar Bareilly-243001, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bareilly

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

ITA 173/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Vishan Chandra Gupta V. Income Tax Officer S/O Salig Ram, Ward 1(1) 56, Lajpat Nagar Bareilly Karamchari Marg Bareilly Tan/Pan:Anhpg7000J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 12.07.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,61,210/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Air Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.13,90,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Financial Year 2010-11 Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Assessing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 05.06.2023 for condonation of delay, duly supported by Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee was suffering

Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath, Vaijnath vs. ITO Ward 1(5) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2253/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80P

with a delay of 367 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the said impugned order. 4. Similarly, the facts relating to ITA No.2253/PUN/2024 are that the assessee declared Nil income after claiming deduction

Jagruti Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Myt Parli Vaijnath, Parali Vaijnath vs. ITO Ward 1(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2252/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80P

with a delay of 367 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the said impugned order. 4. Similarly, the facts relating to ITA No.2253/PUN/2024 are that the assessee declared Nil income after claiming deduction

Bangar Raju Penmetsa, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 896/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 896/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Bangar Raju Penmetsa, Acit, Hyderabad. Vs. Central Circle-1(4), [Pan : Acapp1228P] Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri U. Mini Chandran, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 69A

made on account of unsubstan"ated personal savings in previous years. Thus, learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 2 of 5 Bangar Raju Penmetsa 5. Learned Authorized Representa"ve (“learned AR”) submi"ed that learned CIT(A) did not consider

Vishnucharan Sunku, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward- 4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for sta"s"cal purpose

ITA 871/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 871/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vishnucharan Sunku, Income Tax Officer, Hymayath Nagar, Vs. Ward-4(3), Hyderabad. It Tower, Masab Tank, [Pan : Afvps5500B] Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

assessee’s Writ Pe""on before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana was already disposed of. Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Authorized Representa"ve (“learned AR”) submi"ed before us that since the Writ Pe""on filed by the assessee before

Sri Sai Krishna Rice Industry, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for sta"s"cal purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1135/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 1135/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Sai Krishna Rice Income Tax Officer, Industry, Vs. Ward-(1), Khammam. Khammam. [Pan : Abdfs6805R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Industry vs. ITO Assessing Officer’s ac"on is upheld. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Learned Authorized Representa"ve (“learned AR”) submi"ed that the assessee, M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Rice Industry, is a partnership firm, whose

Sanghi Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

under- reporting of income. Feeling aggrieved by the directions of the Ld. DRP / Assessment Order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above-extracted grounds. 3. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has not claimed deduction U/s. 80IA

Mosarrat Perween, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 662/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.662/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

compliance mode of the assessee and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A). 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book containing 36 pages submitted that