← 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

Agarwal Sabha, Ulubari, Guwahati vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraagarwal Sabha, Cit (Exemption), Kolkata, H.No. 92A, Saratkunj 10B, Middleton Road, Apartment, Mill Road, Ulubari, Vs Kolkata - 700071 Guwahati (Pan: Aalaa5893M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ashok Kumar Agarwala, ARFor Respondent: Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

also cancelled w.e.f. the date of its issue. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the records were examined. In order to decide the appeal, it is imperative

Panisheola Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1181/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-2020 Panisheola Samabay Krishi Deputy Commissioner Of Unnayan Samity Limited, Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Bhagabatipur, Panisheola, Vs Kolkata, Haripal, Hooghly - 712405 Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (Pan: Aaaap8740R) Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: P.K. Ray, AdvocateFor Respondent: L.N. Dash, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80P

date for filing the original return was 31.10.2019. Aggrieved with the order of the Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the course of the hearing, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the amendment in sub-clause (v) of Section

Srimathi Rajamani, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Salem

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

ITA 1874/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1874/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rajamani, The Income Tax Officer, 5/80, Mvs House, Vs. Ward-2(1), Salem Street Plant Road, Salem. Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem – 636 302. Pan: Afppr 2492K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 49Section 50C

acquisition as on 28.10.2002 at Rs.6,00,000/- and after indexing the same, recompute the capital gain. Further aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We noted that the AO has adopted the assessee’s share of sale consideration in term of section

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-3, Bangalore vs. Sri Ramaiah Reddy Educational Trust, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1501/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George K & Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. S. N. Shanbhog, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

under consideration and allowed appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that CIT(A) has erred in not discussing the reasons for disallowance of exemption in the Order passed under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru vs. Kirloskar Electronic Company Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO preferred by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1127/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Circle - 4(3)(1), No.5555, Malleshwaram West, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 055. Pan : Aabck 2721 Q Appellant Respondent Co No.27/Bang/2024 (In Ita No. 1127/Bang/2024) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Bangalore – 560 055. Circle - 4(3)(1), Pan : Aabck 2721 Q Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sachin Mehta, Ca Department By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Cross Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 19.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. Co No.27/Bang/2024 (In Ita No. 1127/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250

submitted that appeal by the Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had worked out a tax effect with regard to the appeal filed by the Department which is less than Rs.60 ... CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 had prescribed a monetary limit / tax effect exceeding Rs.60,00,000/- or above for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The said Circular No.9/2024 apply to the pending appeals before the Supreme Court / High Court / Tribunal (Refer para 5 of Circular). Since the case

Jiten Dhiraj Furia, Mumbai vs. Addl- JCIT (A)-1 Delhi, Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3967/MUM/2024[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 69

thus gave partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that, initial onus cast upon the assessee stands fulfilled. The assessee furnished loan confirmation of all the loan creditors

Fresh Bowl Horticulture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3049/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

taken by the ld. Assessing Officer that growing of white button mushrooms is in the nature of business activity. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book containing 157 pages along with certain other documents

Sri Rajani Gold, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Rajani Gold V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) D.No. 11-49-336B Central Revenue Building Sivalayam Street, I Town Mg Road – 520001 Vijayawada – 520001 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfs6675E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 64 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 65 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee-firm

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

that expenditure claimed being broken period interest is not allowable as a revenue expenditure. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Tribunal framed the question for consideration as under: Whether broken period interest paid on purchase of securities is revenue expenditure since

Mohan Shriniwas Bhise, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 3, Sangli

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

ITA 900/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Amol R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69

investment of Rs.25,00,000/- in Mutual Funds dated 05/11/2018 remains unexplained in the absence of explanation.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. National Faceless Appeals Centre (hereinafter referred

Vanisri Mukta, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 521/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Vanisri Mukta Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Amrpm7019G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Ld.Dr 08.10.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 10.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Ld.DR
Section 1Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee to file the appeal before the Tribunal with the delay of 70 days. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. In this case, the learned

Krishna Mohan Thiriveedhi, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 125/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Krishna Mohan Vs. Income Tax Officer Thiriveedhi, Kurnool Ward -1 Pan:Aefpt7694N Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Harish, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamsi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A. Harish, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Vamsi Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

No.125 of 20245 Krishna Mohan Thiriveedhi 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.23,35,000/- made by the Assessing

Neeraj Dadhich, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1142/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

failed to remind filing of the appeal. Consequently, the assessee has engaged the present counsel Sh. Rajendra Sisodia Advocate to file the appeal before the Tribunal. In support, he filed an affidavit stating therein the facts illustrating the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal with a request

Shantha Ravindra, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Mysore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shantha Ravindra, Vs. Ito, No.2998, Krs Road, Yadavagiri, Ward – 1(3). Mysuru – 57020. Pan : Bfjpr 6898 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s Order confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.12,64,000/-, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing the return of income, the housing loan statement, the bank account statement (SB A/c), etc. The learned

Mohammed Shuaib, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1399/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Shuaib, Vs. Ito, No.1, A Street, Coles Road Cross Ward – 1(2)(1), Frazer Town, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 005. Pan : Avzps 8507 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha R, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250

learned AR submitted that only out of abundant caution to keep the issue alive, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As rightly pointed by the learned DR, CIT(A) has set aside the reassessment

Shubhada Sanjay Sane, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Two (One) Kolhapur

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

ITA 1750/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1750/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shubhada Sanjay Sane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), 413, D-Ward, Kolhapur Annapurna Apartment, Dravid Wada, Gangavesh-416002 Maharashtra Pan : Adxps8499K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Aaradhi
Section 143(1)Section 154

income and the returned income, no appeal lies against the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(1)Section 80G(2)Section 80G(2)(a)

Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.64,32,502/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the solitary ground raised by the assessee relates thereto. 6. The Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before

DCIT, Central Circle -1(4), Hyderabad vs. Mk Infra & Developers, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 417/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.417/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vamsi Krishna, DR
Section 268A

issued Circular No. 09 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024 with retrospective effect, revising the monetary limit to Rs.60,00,000/- for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. It is further found that as the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is less than Rs.60,00,000/-, the extant appeal ... 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 case is admittedly less than the prescribed limit

Menzies Bobba Ground Handling Services Private Limited (Now Merged With Menzies Aviation Bobba(Bangalore)Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 226/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR appeared for Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT -DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

Assessee had preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A) and it was decided in favor of the Assessee. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. 3. Subsequently, on a perusal of the assessment record, learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax found that during the year

Lakshmi Sai Traders, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Oct 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 334 & 335/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2022-23 & 2023-24) Lakshmi Sai Traders, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Aacfl7137K Guntur. (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 : 03/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 194Q

assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On 3 being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present 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