← 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

Manackraj Kamaraj, Ambur vs. ITO, Non Corpate Ward 11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2541/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2541/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Manackraj Kamaraj Ito Ncw 11(2) No. 23/10, Ramar Koil Street, Chennai Ambur-635 802. Tamil Nadu [Pan: Alzpk 7476 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 156Section 68

confirmed the addition, observing that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of payments. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that credit card payments are debits and cannot be brought to tax as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68, which applies

Mercy Education Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2231/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

confirmed the penalty imposed u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book enclosing therein the trust deed, order of the University of Calicut recognizing the assessee’s college, financials

Yashu Iron Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle 32, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6420/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2019-20 Yashu Iron Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Cc-32, Delhi 316, Pocket-8, Dda Multi Storey Building, Dwarka, Sector-12, Delhi – 110 075 (Pan: Aaacy4556E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. S.K. Gupta, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69A

accommodation entry taken from entry provider. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who also confirmed the same. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. After hearing both the parties and going through the case records, we noted that the AO has noted from the ledger account

Poonam, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6209/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2025. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Although several legal grounds have been raised by the assessee, we first take up Ground No. 2 relating to the validity of notice

K. G. Finvest Private Limited, East Delhi vs. Central Circle 29, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4330/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Circle-29, F-24 F/Floor, I.Sc Pankaj Delhi Central Market, Mandawali Fazalpur, Nr Natraj Vihar Society, I.P. Extn., New Delhi- 110092. Pan-Aaack4032H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv. & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-5/10256/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2015, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,09,130/-. The Case Was Selected Under Limited Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Followed By Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time. In Response, Assessee Filed Submissions & Relevant Details Alongwith Evidences. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Issued 8,40,000 Equity Shares Of Inr 10/- Each At A Premium Of Inr 490/- Each & The Valuation Of Shares Was Done By Following Dcf Method. However, The Ao Rejected The Method Of Valuation Of Share Adopted By The Assessee & Re-Computed The Value Per Share At Inr 50.35 Per Share As Per Nav Method & Made Addition Of Differential Amount Of Inr 37,77,06,000/- U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

accepted and confirmed the additions made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition

Manoj Kumar, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3378/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manoj Kumar Vs Ito Prop. Avitex India, Barsat Ward-1 Road, Opp.Kirpal Ashram, Panipat Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan-Aaepo2553J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gutpa, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak [“Ld. Pr. Cit”] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 18.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Based On The Available That The Assessee Had Accepted Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Purchases From M/S. Soni Textiles Of Inr 11,47,500/-, Case Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29.03.2022. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 25.11.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time However, Were Remained Uncompiled With. Thereafter, Ao Vide Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 16,60,320/- By Making Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

Section 147Section 148Section 15BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 69C

making addition u/s 69C of the Act towards the bogus purchases. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision order

Allen Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2355/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Grover, Shri Viral Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

claims made by the assessee in the IT return, after providing due opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3 | P a g e ITA No. 2355/DEL/2025 Allen Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. AO has raised

Mahender Malik, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward -(1), Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5586/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because

ITO, Ward-1, Bhilwara vs. Shri Kamal Kishore Agarwal, Bhilwara

In the result M.A. No. 05/Jodh/2019 is allowed and the appeal in ITA No

ITA 381/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blem.A. No. 05/Jodh/2019 (A/O Ita No. 381/Jodh/2018) & Income Tax Officer, Shri Kamal Kishore Agarwal, Ward-1, Prop. M/S. Synthetics, Bhilwara. B-42 To 46, Bhilwara Textile Market, Bhilwara-311001. Pan No. Abzpa6445P Assessee By None. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Miscellaneous Application Is Instituted At The Instant Of The Department Against The Tribunal Order In Ita No. 381/Jodh/2018 Dated 11- 09-2019 In Respect With Assessment Years 2012-13 For Recalling The Said Appeal Which Was Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect. 2. The Ld. Addl. Cit (Dr) For The Department Submitted That At The Time Of Adjudication Of The Revenue Appeal In Ita No. 381/Jodh/2018 In Respect With Assessment Years 2012-13 The Appeal Of The Department Was Dismissed On Tax Effect By The Hon’Ble Tribunal In View Of The Enhanced Monetary Limits By The Cbdt Circular No. 17 Of 2019 Dated 08.08.2019 As The Revised Monitory Limit

Section 54F

Revenue Audit Objection has been accepted by the Department and hence it wa not covered in Tax limits of filing appeal before the Tribunal. However, he agreed that in view of the latest CBDT Circular No.5/ 2024 dated 15 March 2024 presently, the matter is covered under low tax effect

Vidyotma, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2 (1), Sitamarhi

ITA 378/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that the Grounds of Appeal hereto are without prejudice to one mother. 2) For that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna vs. Yashi Films Private Limited, Patna

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

ITA 462/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194JSection 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 07.05.2024. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in allowing ... vide order dated 07/05/2024 allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. The Ld. DR argued that additional evidences were filed

Sh. Jatinder Kaura (Deceased) Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Raikot, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jagraon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1394/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jatinder Kaura The Ito, (Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Vs Ward-1, House No. 338, New Green City, Jagraon. Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agwpk6095P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kuldeep Singh, Itp & Shri Mps Malhotra, Itp Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Kuldeep Singh, ITP & Shri MPS Malhotra, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 07.10.2025 passed for assessment year

Amarjit Singh Marwaha, Shimla vs. ITO, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1379/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1379/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amarjit Singh Marwaha, The Ito, Cottage No.1, Sadhora, Vs Ward-1, Mashobra, Baldeyan, Shimla. Shimla. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepm0161N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, With Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan Sr.Advocate, with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 45Section 54Section 54F

Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.08.2025 passed for assessment year

M/S Star Biotech, Chandigarh vs. ITO Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh

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

ITA 1353/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1353/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 26.08.2025 passed for assessment year

Deepa Kamal Kishore Sharma, Kochi, Kerala vs. ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2209/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

finding the cause for delay as reasonable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On going through the record, we find that the appeal

Deepa Kamal Kishore Sharma, Kochi, Kerala vs. ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2208/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

finding the cause for delay as reasonable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On going through the record, we find that the appeal

Shri Visha Oshval Jain Kelavani Mandal, Anand vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the above condition

ITA 1734/AHD/2025[NA]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehal Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

cancelled the provisional approval earlier granted. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(Exemptions), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the trustees of the assessee trust could not comply with the notices issued

Mr. Ramesh Prabhakar Patil, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 906/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 02 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO. 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-compliance of the notice

Tukaram Dnyaneshwar Bhalekar, Pune vs. The ITO Ward-9(1), Pune

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

ITA 2868/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

appeal in limine without adjudication on merit. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee is an individual and is not well versed with

Ritu Kalpesh Hiran, Satara vs. ITO, Satara

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

ITA 1649/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on facts and in law, the notice u/s 148 dt 21.07.2022 issued in violation of provisions