← 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

Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1488/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

manufacturing Unit of the assessee during the year. On appeal the DRP confirmed the order of TPO and hence the assessee in appeal before the tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us carefully. At the outset, we note that the Orient Paper

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

ITA 2452/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income (Appeals). 3. The Id. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Id. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Id. Counsel argued that the Id. Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings vide show cause notice dated 25.05.2023 for 'furnishing

Kongu Trust, Salem vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1267/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

order u/s 154 of the Act dated 09-05-2017.” 6. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing therein the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act for the assessment year

Concern for Urban and Rural Development Society Curds, Kanakanagar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions Ward 1 Bangalore, Bangalore

ITA 2025/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18 Concern For Urban & Rural Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Development Society Curds, Ward – 1, No.27, 17Th Cross, Kanakanagar, Bengaluru. R. T. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032. Pan : Aaaac 2980 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-24/1069056284(1)] Dated 24.09.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Of Income Electronically On 28.03.2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, None Appeared On Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 69

response from the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessment Order was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee filed written submissions and the relevant part of the written submission is as under: 37. From the above

ACIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Learningmate Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3659/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2022-23 Acit-2(2)(1), Learningmate Solutions Private 5Th Floor, Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7 To 10, M.K.Road, 74 Techno Park, Mumbai. 74/Ii, C Cross Road, Midc, Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (East) Mumbai Pan : Aaacl9067F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Tejal Saraf Revenue By : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 28

liable to tax u/s.28 to 44DB of the Act. Aggrieved by theorder of the Ld.Addl./JCIT(A), the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record.We notice that the Ld.Addl./JCIT(A) has given the following reasoning to hold that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., Second Floor

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 2185/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 481

same was passed in the name of BETL – a non-existent entity. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal of the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 5. We have both the sides and perused the material on record. 6. The Ld. Departmental

Patanakar Shivendra Nagojirao HUF, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1542/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay. 4 Patankar Shivendra Nagojirao HUF 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A). 7. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not received any notices

Sbpl Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 685/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 14A

Disc Prolapse. The assessee filed a medical certificate in support thereof. As soon as he recovered, he immediately ensured preparation and filing of appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal with 94 days is due to the reasons, which are beyond the control ... case, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed and served on the assessee on 14.02.2024 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal on or before 14.04.2024 but the assessee could file appeal before the Tribunal on 17.07.2024 with the delay of 94 days. We find

Intelligent Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1907/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit Intelligent Infrastructure Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 3/1, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, Chowringhee Suare, Vs. Kolkata-700017, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp8597P Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, DR

served a notice to the assessee for adjustment of refund against the demand raised. The assessee immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 258 days. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for sufficient

Allied Besco (Jv), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata

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

ITA 1114/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Allied Besco (Jv) Acit, Circle, C/O M/S. Besco Ltd. Foundry, 10B, Middleton Row, 7Th Floor, Poonam Building, 5/2, Vs. Russel Street, Kolkata-700071, Kolkata-700071, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadaa3076G Assessee By : Shri Saswati Mitra Dutta & Ms. Rajashree Dutta, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Saswati Mitra Dutta &For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 143Section 144

outset, we note that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee and assessee moved a condonation petition along with the evidences as regards illness of authorized signatory due to which the appeal could not be field within the stipulated time

Mohideen Saib Ibrahim, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

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

ITA 2573/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 304 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal ... appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.AR submitted that audit report was prepared well within the extended due date (audit report in Form No.3CB was prepared and signed

ACIT 32 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Shubham Dynamic Real Estae Developers LLP, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4476/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 43C

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

Kamdhenu Gram Sewa Samiti, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3933/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(vi)

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 155 days and 146 days respectively in both the appeals in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed. Hence, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute is hereby condoned

Kamdhenu Gram Sewa Samiti, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3932/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(vi)

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 155 days and 146 days respectively in both the appeals in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed. Hence, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute is hereby condoned

M/S. Triple S Stock & Shares (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3523/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2006-07] M/S. Triple S Stock & Shares (P.) Ltd. Vs Ito Flat No.259 Sector-3 Pocket D-17 Ward-16(4) Rohini Delhi-110085. New Delhi. Pan-Aabct5743K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Aditya Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024

Section 143(3)Section 153A

find any merit in the plea of the assessee and accordingly confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. M/s. Triple S Stock & Shares (P.) Ltd. vs ITO 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Haridas, Pilibhit vs. ITO Range-2(4), Pilibhit

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

ITA 402/LKW/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Haridas V. The Income Tax Officer 418, Amaria, Sitarganj Marg Range 2(4) Pilibhit (U.P) Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Apqph6916R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.01.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Air Information Received In The Office Of The Income Tax Department, It Was Noted That The Assessee Had Deposited A Sum Of Rs.12,01,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148

Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 28.06.2024 for condonation of delay, ITA No.402/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 7 duly supported by an Affidavit

Badrinath Shreenivas, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1055/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1055/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Badrinath Shreenivas The Ito बनाम/ 605/A, 80 Feet Double Road Ward-1(2)(3) V/S. Rmv Club Vadodara – 390 015 Rmv Extension Ii Stage S.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore 15-Karnataka, 91-India Karnataka – 560 094 (Karnataka) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adpps 0435 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Veeresh Budati, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veeresh Budati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 148Section 250

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 23 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of the said delay on medical grounds. 3.1. Keeping in view the reason given ... satisfied that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay of 23 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and even learned Departmental Representative (DR) has not raised any material objection in this regard. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, condone

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 Pune, Pune vs. Shankar Ramchandra Earthmovers Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1085/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prathamesh Borkar

issued Circular No. 09 of 2018, dated 17th September, 2024 with retrospective effect, revising the monetary limit to Rs.60.00 lakh for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. He further submitted that as the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is Rs.59,41,011/-, which is less than Rs.60.00 lakh ... effect is less than Rs.60,00,000/-. We are, therefore, of the view that the Revenue should have either not filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal or withdrawn the same as the tax effect in this appeal is admittedly less than the stipulated amount. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant

Matam Lathamma, Secunderabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

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

ITA 225/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.225/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Matam Lathamma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adypl2367A Anakapalle. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)

plea for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is contrary to the facts and also

Kilaru Rajyalakshmi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Vijayawada

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

ITA 210/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. 210/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kilaru Rajyalakshmi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-1(2), Pan: Aecpk5985J Vijaywada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable