← 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, Gangtok vs. Bhumika Rai, Namchi, Sikkim

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

ITA 1581/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 147Section 250Section 69Section 69A

order framed u/s 147/144/144B of the Act dated 24.03.2022. I.T.A. No.: 1581/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhumika Rai. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is not justified both in law and in fact ... hence exempt u/s 10(26AAA) of the Act.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6.Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. Our attention was drawn

DCIT, Circle - 1 (1), Trichy vs. Shri P.S. Jayaraman, Ariyalur

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

ITA 3082/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3082/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri P.S. Jayaraman, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Prop: Ramajayam Transports & No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Contracts, Kamaraj Nagar, Trichy 620 001. Ariyalur 621 704. [Pan: Agrpj9114D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl.Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr. L. Natarajan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.07.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. At The Outset, We Note That Vide Order Dated 05.01.2024 In Mp No. 60/Chny/2023, The Appeal Order Dated 14.12.2022, Which Was Dismissed On Low Tax Effect, Has Been Restored On The Ground That There Is Rap Audit Objection.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &

before the Tribunal as per the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024 and being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.60,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable

M/S Metropolitan Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Incomet Tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(1), 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 5298/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. The Metropolitan Premises Co- Ito, Ward 23(2)(1), Op. Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Vs. C-26/27, Block-E, The Metropolitan Mumbai-400012. Prem. Co. Op. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaat 8898 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DR
Section 80P(2)(d)

aforementioned order is screenshot of relevant portion of the aforementioned order is reproduced hereunder: reproduced hereunder:” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds

Renu Sanewal As Legal Heir of Rajinder Singh Sanewal, Plot No vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Rohtak

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1042/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Aarone Developers Private Vs. Dcit Circle – 1(1) Limited, 6Th Floor, Select New Delhi City Walk Mall, A-3, District Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017 Pan No. Aaacv0276C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 07-01- 2025 dismissed the appeal, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ground no 2&3 are squarely covered from the assessee own case in ITA NO. 725/Del/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Shillong, Shillong vs. Dhar Construction Company, Shillong

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

ITA 39/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 69C

result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated before the Bench that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong vs. Achula Darneichong Sailo, Shillong

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

ITA 120/GTY/2023[2014 ]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 10(26)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The main ground of appeal of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not verifying the source of cash

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong vs. Achula Darneichong Sailo, Shillong

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

ITA 119/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The statement of facts as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) mentions that the assessee was a member of a scheduled tribe

Soni and Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 808/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.807 & 808/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Soni & Brother, Vs. The Ito, H-29, New Sardar Market, Dumbhai Ward – 2(3)(6), Patia, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawfs6792H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 250Section 270A

assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was confirmed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book, containing 31 pages including written submission in respect of grounds of appeal

Soni and Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 807/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.807 & 808/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Soni & Brother, Vs. The Ito, H-29, New Sardar Market, Dumbhai Ward – 2(3)(6), Patia, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawfs6792H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 250Section 270A

assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was confirmed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book, containing 31 pages including written submission in respect of grounds of appeal

K Patel International, Ankleshwar vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch

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

ITA 785/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.785/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) K. Patel International, Vs. The Acit, Residential Plot No.64, New Circle – 2, Colony, Valia Road, Gidc, Bharuch Ankleshwar – 393002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk7262Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh Modiani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 250

confirmed the addition by repeating findings of the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR has filed paper book, containing 71 pages which includes written submission before the Tribunal, CIT(A) and AO, audit report, invoices for sales

Nainu Bhadu, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1129/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1129/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Nainu Bhadu, Vs. The Ito, Plot No.1, Laxminarayan Society, Ward – 1, Kadodara, Tal – Palsana, Surat - 394327 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Avqpn6835M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) passed the order

Dev Fuels(Mavungal Agencies)A, Kanhangad vs. ITO, Kasargod

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

ITA 707/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dev Fuels (Mavungal Agencies) .......... Appellant Mavungal Anandashram, Main Road Kanhangad, Kasaragod 671531 [Pan: Aadfm9425E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kasaragod Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 and a few other orders. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The learned A.R. has filed a letter seeking adjournment on the ground the senior partner of the CA firm

Mannam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ernakulam

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

ITA 667/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 56Section 80HSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

relates to the assessment year 2018-2019, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065333727(1). 2. Delay of two days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal is condoned based on the condonation petition accompanied by an Affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee, explaining the reasons for the delay ... 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

DCIT Circle 8, Pune vs. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 96/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

appeal on this ground is allowed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving part relief, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: Being aggrieved by the order passed u/s 250 of the Income ... modify or delete grounds of appeal. 8. Aggrieved with the part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

appeal on this ground is allowed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving part relief, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: Being aggrieved by the order passed u/s 250 of the Income ... modify or delete grounds of appeal. 8. Aggrieved with the part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune

ITA 228/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

Pune, appeal on this ground is allowed." Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving part relief, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: Being aggrieved by the order passed u/s 250 of the Income ... modify or delete grounds of appeal. Aggrieved with the part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Mahale Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

appeal on this ground is allowed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) giving part relief, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: Being aggrieved by the order passed u/s 250 of the Income ... modify or delete grounds of appeal. 8. Aggrieved with the part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Santosh Reddysheetywar, Adilabad vs. ITO., Ward-(1), Nirmal

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

ITA 1299/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 1299/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Santosh Reddysheetywar, Income Tax Officer, Adilabad. Vs. Ward-(1), [Pan : Afkpr1479K] Nirmal. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)

filed any wri"en submissions nor uploaded any response in spite of issue of no"ces on various occasions. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Authorized Representa"ve (“learned AR”) submi"ed before us that the assessee only acts as a commission agent to the sellers/agriculturists

Dhanush Foundation, Hyderabad vs. ITO(Exemptions), Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1221/HYD/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1220/Hyd/2024 & 1221/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Dhanush Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions) [Pan :Aadtd1195L] Ward-1(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assesseee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Ar Shri M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 22/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) [Ld.Cit(E)], Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2024- 25. Since The Facts Are Identical & The Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 10ASection 12A

Trust / Society u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act as infructuous. 3. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(E) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee referring to order of the Ld.CIT(E) submitted that the assessee has furnished part information called

Dhanush Foundation, Hyderabad vs. ITO(Exemptions), Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1220/HYD/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1220/Hyd/2024 & 1221/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Dhanush Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions) [Pan :Aadtd1195L] Ward-1(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assesseee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Ar Shri M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 22/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) [Ld.Cit(E)], Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2024- 25. Since The Facts Are Identical & The Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 10ASection 12A

Trust / Society u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act as infructuous. 3. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(E) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee referring to order of the Ld.CIT(E) submitted that the assessee has furnished part information called