“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

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

carry tax effect below the specified monetary of INR.60 Lacs fixed by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing Departmental Appeal before the Tribunal limit. A ITA No. 502/Mum/2024, ITA No.302/Mum/2024 ITA No.556/Mum/2024 & ITA No. 557/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Therefore, the appeal preferred by the Revenue ... Lakhs to INR.60 Lakhs. It has also been clarified in Circular No. 9 of 2024 that the aforesaid monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal would also apply to the pending departmental appeals. 8.4. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the Assessee has been

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 502/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

carry tax effect below the specified monetary of INR.60 Lacs fixed by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing Departmental Appeal before the Tribunal limit. A Therefore, the appeal preferred by the Revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of Circular No. 5 of 2024, dated 15/03/2024, read ... Lakhs to INR.60 Lakhs. It has also been clarified in Circular No. 9 of 2024 that the aforesaid monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal would also apply to the pending departmental appeals. 8.4. The contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that the Assessee has been

Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional -Joint -Deputy-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- ITO, Delhi

ITA 302/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Fenil Bhatt For theFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya & Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

Empire Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1363/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15 Empire Multitrade Dcit- 12(2)(1) Private Limited Room No. 642, A/4, Chandrika Chs 6Th Floor, Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Shankar Lane, Maharishi Karve Road, Kandivali (W.), Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400067. Pan: Aabce0444J Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250

speculative loss fails. These grounds of the appellant Dismissed.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Empire Multitrade Private Limited.; A. Y.2014-15 4. The Ld.AR submitted that Ground No1.1-1.2 are general in nature and therefore do not require any adjudication

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Two Axis Fintech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect

ITA 3590/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3590/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2021-22) Income Tax Officer, R. No. 413 A, 4Th Floor, Cr Building, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Ip Estate, New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Two Axix Fintech P. Ltd., C-14, C.C Colony, Opp. Ratna Pratap Bagh, Delhi 110007 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan No. Aabcf-2186-Q अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 12/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 10.06.2024, For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. A Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Show That The Tax Effect Involved In This Appeal Is Merely Rs.1,08,000/- I.E. Far Less Than The Tax Effect For Filing Of Appeal By The Department Before The Tribunal. The Cbdt Vide Circular No. 09/2024 Dated

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Department before the Tribunal. The CBDT vide Circular no. 09/2024 dated 2 17.09.2024 has increased the tax effect for filing of appeal before the Tribunal to Rs.60 lakhs. The ld. DR has not been able to show that the issue raised in appeal falls under any of the exceptions specified

Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4740/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Surya Jyoti Software Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 206, Hans Bhawan, 1, Ward-24, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aalcs5682G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who in turn denied any relief. 6. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged the additions made on merits as well as alleged multiple

Alok Dadu, Modi Nagar vs. Addljcit(A)-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 613/LKW/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Alok Dadu V. The Ito-2(4) H. No.310, Gali No.3 Pilibhit Bharampuri Modi Nagar Tan/Pan:Acdod4702B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(c)

Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the assessee had met with

A.K.A. Developers Pvt.Ltd., Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as un-admitted

ITA 294/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 A.K.A. Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. The Ito 77, Govt. Industrial Estate Ward 6(1) Kalpi Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aahca6235 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

that there is a delay of 2229 days in filing of the appeal and no application for condonation of delay, in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, has been filed by the assessee. Further, a perusal of record shows that earlier this appeal was fixed for hearing on three occasions ... liberty to approach this Tribunal for restoration of this appeal for regular hearing, explaining the cause of delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, if so advised. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as un-admitted. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/12/2024. [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

Kalpana Prakash Kale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Pune

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

ITA 1839/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69

NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by not condoning

Dr N T Ghatte Charitable Trust, Sangli vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1838/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandradr N T Ghatte Charitable Trust Islampur Cit (Exemption), Pune Behind Shani Mandir Islampur, Walwa, Vs. Sangli – 415409 Pan: Aactd2643J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-12-2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld CIT Exemption erred in law and on facts in rejection of application for registration

Chaitanya Narahari Bhosale, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

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

ITA 1510/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250(6)Section 68

dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming

Pasupuleti Lakshmana Rao, Bhadrachalam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kothagudem

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

ITA 1198/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Reema Yadav, DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

support of the cash deposited into the bank account. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, but none appeared for the assessee. The assessee raised grounds of appeal before the Tribunal and submitted that the order passed

Wissen Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT., Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1082/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1082/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Wissen Technology Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Bangalore Circle-17(2) [Pan : Aabcw5249H] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 11/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Siliguri, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant’S Case, The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Of I.T.Act Passed By Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Siliguri, In Adjudicating The Appeal Filed Against Intimation U/S 143(1) Of I.T.Act Is Not Correct Both On The Facts & In The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Appellant’S

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of PF and ESI contribution u/s 36(1)(v) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came up for consideration from ground No.3 of assessee’s appeal is addition towards disallowance of interest paid

M/S. Swagat Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata (Formerly D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata)

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

ITA 1850/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1850/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Swagat Trexim Pvt. Limited,..…………Appellant 32/7, Sahapur Colony, Kolkata-700053 [Pan:Aaecs1238F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, [Formerly Dcit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata] Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsian, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

assessee, the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal raised the following issues:- “(1) That the ld. CIT(A) was wrong in confirming addition of Rs.5,92,707/- u/s 14A read with Rule

James Mathew, Kottayam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kottayam

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

ITA 624/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 James Mathew Choorapoikayil, Koorali P.O. Elamgulam,Kottayam 686522 [Pan: Cjapm8714J] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward – 2, Kottayam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142Section 144

vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing on the decision. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find

Karimbil Abdul Jaleel Gurukkal, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kannur

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

ITA 537/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Karimbil Abdul Jaleel Gurukkal Napakm Ayurvedic Pharmaceuticals Taliparamba, Kannur - 670141 [Pan: Adqpg8437J] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward – 3, Kannur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

Bombay High Court in the case of P.N. Balasubramanium (AP) 112 ITR 512. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that

St Johns Educational Society, Kollam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Kollam

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

ITA 471/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 St. Johns Educational Society Karuvelil Post, Kundra Kollam 691001 [Pan: Aaqas6300N] .......... Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle Kollam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)

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. 5. When the appeal was called, nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned

Shenoy Vidyasagar, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(3), Kochi

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

ITA 401/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shenoy Vidyasagar 3/142 5Th Street Mudichur, Tambaram Pallavaram, Kanchipuram 600043 [Pan: Awpps1368A] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2024 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Salary. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 26.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 4,06,590/- After Claiming Certain Deductions Amounting To Rs. 2,68,552/- In Form 16 Without Filing Any Supporting Evidences. Therefore, The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3) (Hereafter “The Ao”) Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 07.06.2016 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 6,75,140/- By Making The Addition Of Rs. 2,68,552/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record

M/S Sri Saravana Tyraders(Firm), Coimbatore vs. Iito, Non Corporate Ward-1(5), Coimbatore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.380/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) M/S. Sri Saravana Traders (Firm) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.F.No.54/2, Non Corporate Ward 1(5) Pichanur Village, Coimbatore 641 018 Navakkarai Post, Coimbatore 641 105. [Pan: Achfs 2783D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

submitted any document/proof in support of its claim. Hence, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted and referred cash book for the period 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 (Pg 2-10), total

Finesse Jewels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 1249/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfinesse Jewels Private Limited, A-467 Jaipur, Vidhyut Nagar, Jaipur, Ajmer Road- 302 021. Pan No.: Aabcf 4438R ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jaipur – 302 021. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal, (2003) 260 ITR 658: 2002 SCC Online Raj. 801: (2002) 178 CTR 420 the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held-: 6. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that many opportunities were given to the assessee, twice the assessment order was set aside, thereafter, assessments were made