← 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

Smt. K S Vasanthamma Legal Heir of Late Sri. Kondajji Shivappa, Davangere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Davangere

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

ITA 1350/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shri. Kondajji Shivappa Surendrappa, Vs. Ito, L/R By Smt. K. S. Vasanthama, Ward – 5, Devraurs Layout Post, Davangere. Davangere – 577 006. Pan : Cypps 9554 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

appeal is partly allowed.” Page 3 of 4 5. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book comprising of 96 pages enclosing therein the written submissions filed before CIT(A), the notices issued during

Harvinder Singh Marwah, Jogeshwari East vs. CIT(A), Delhi

ITA 3282/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Balbir Singh MarwahFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

order dated 03/05/2024. 6. Being aggrieved by order, dated 03/05/2024, passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal, the Appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Authorised Representative for the Appellant reiterated 3 Assessment Year

Nissim Traders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Acti, Circle 10(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3213/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

deleted in toto.” 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 226 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay and affidavit is placed on record explaining the reasons for the delay caused. According to the assessee

Arihant Vastunirman Private Limited, Ratnagiri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 448/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arihant Vastunirman Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Limited, Office No.1, Siddhivinayak Community Hall, Shivaji Nagar, Siddhivinayak Nagar, Ratnagiri- 415612. Pan : Aakca4408K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. Of Rs.34,14,922/- Representing Notional Rental Income In Respect Of Unsold Flats Forming Part Of Closing Inventory Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 23(4)Section 23(5)

assessee ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.02.2024. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR submitted before us that the order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not correct. It was submitted ... Tribunal in M/s Cosmopolis Construction vs. ITO (ITA Nos.230 & 231/PUN/2018) dated 12-9-2018. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 31. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record, it is found as an admitted position that the vacant property

Vegesna Hare Ramaraju, Viskahapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.351/Viz/2024) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)) Vegesna Hare Ramaraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(1), Pan: Accpv9401E Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, 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

Siddireddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Kadiyam Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.326/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Siddireddy Veera Venkata Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Satyanarayana Murthy, Ward-2(3), Kadiyam Mandal, Rajahmundry. East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh-533126. Pan: Bpaps5187Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna, Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna, Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved 5 by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, 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

Angadala Ramakrishna, Veleru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

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

ITA 242/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.242/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramakrishna Angadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-121/B, Veeravalli, Bapulapadu, Ward-1, Krishna District-521110, Gudivada. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Brwpa7639F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144

outset, it is observed from the record available before me that there is a delay of 207 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras ... condone the delay and admit the appeal.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, I find that the assessee being an illiterate and having no knowledge about the proceedings under the Income

Rambabu Angadala, Gudivada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

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

ITA 241/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rambabu Angadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-12/C, Veleru, Veeravalli Ward-1, Bapulapadu, Krishna-521110, Gudivada. Andhra Pradesh-521110. Pan: Brwpa7640C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

outset, it is observed from the record available before me that there is a delay of 475 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras ... condone the delay and admit the appeal.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, I find that the assessee being an illiterate and having no knowledge about the proceedings under the Income

Hotel Sea Pearl, Kollam vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Kollam

ITA 858/COCH/2023[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 4. Delay of 73 days in filing this appeal before the tribunal is condoned in light of assessee's solemn averments in it's condonation petition. 5. To sum up, this assessee's appeal

Sreeni Parameswaran, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Ward 2(1), Range 2, Kochi

ITA 581/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. 3. Delay 180 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal is condoned in light of assessee’s averments in his petition explaining reasons thereof beyond his control. 4. To sum up, assessee’s appeal

Sri Jagadguru Shivanand Human Welfare Association, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Hubbali

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

ITA 1732/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavsri Jagadguru Shivanand Ito (Exemption), Ward-1 Human Welfre Association C.R. Building, Navanagar Vs. Gadag 582103, Karnataka Hubli 580025 Pan – Aagas0911F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kashinath Kalamath, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Ld. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Prayagraj [Cit(A)] Dated 20.08.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Obtained Registration U/S. 12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 06.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act By The Cpc In Which The Entire Gross Receipts Of Rs. 50,67,850/- Claimed By The Assessee As Exempt U/S. 11 Of The Act Was Disallowed. The Reason For The Denial Of Benefit U/S. 11 Was That The Assessee Did Not File Form 10B Within The Time Limit Prescribed. On Further Appeal The Ld. Cit(A) Upheld The Disallowance Stating That The Cit(A) Does Not Have The 2 Sri Jagadguru Shivanand Human Welfre Association Power To Condone The Delay In Filing From 10B. The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath Kalamath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Ld. JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(1)

have the 2 Sri Jagadguru Shivanand Human Welfre Association power to condone the delay in filing From 10B. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The benefit of exemption

M/S. Shri Saraswathi Credit Souharda Sahakari Sangha Limited, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

ITA 1729/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavshri Saraswathi Credit

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 234Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

will be considered based on the decision in appeal. 5.6 In the result the appeal is partly allowed.” The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The learned A.R. at the outset submitted that the findings of the AO that the assessee

Kadharegowda Siddaraju, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1641/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Kadharegowda Siddaraju, Vs. Ito, 2909, Maharaja Complex Jai Ward – 1(1), Bhuvaneshwari Bar & Restaurant, Mysuru. B. N. Rod, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysuru – 570 001. Pan : Atops 8978 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein copy of the statement of the income, profit and loss account, balance sheet for the relevant Assessment Year

Stephen Fernandes, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Udupi

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

ITA 1465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 44A

case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Page 4 of 6 MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 declaring NIL income after

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Smt. Vankadara Padmavathi, Hospet, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

37/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 11 305 and CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC). Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR relied on the penalty order dated 21.1.2019 passed by DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore and strongly submitted that

Nvidia Graphics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

ITA 1111/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

merits and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s Order, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed two sets of Paper Book. In one set of Paper Book, assessee has enclosed the case laws relied on. In the other

Manish Vijay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Shri Sunder R Balmiki, Income Tax Officer 24(2)(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 234/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Saket Kanoi, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Accordingly, capital gains from sale of mutual funds are hereby added to income of the assessee". 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The issue before us is whether the assessee is eligible for exemption from tax in India or not when the UAE authorities choose ... before the CIT(A), is also not sustainable in law either. 9. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the submissions of learned Departmental Representative who relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. In our view decision

Bhavin V. Maniar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 266/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Bhavin V. Maniar Vs. Ito, Ward-1 B-202, Vraj Vihar 7 Int. Taxation, Opp: Hans Residency Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar Ahmedabad. Pan : Bzepm 0471 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parin Shah, Ca Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Prothviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69

proposed the addition of double the amount of investment, and hence restricted the impugned addition to Rs.79,35,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has purchased the property at Satellite Area, Ahmedabad

Aarav Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 13/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page No. 26 reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal appears to be genuine. Hence, the delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same