“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

Raja Babu Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 311/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Infra Developers and addition towards increase in capital account. 6. Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos. 3(a) to 3(c) of assessee’s appeal

Shri Rampriya Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1946/HYD/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee at Rs.85/- to Rs.108/- per share. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of assessee’s appeal is disallowance of interest expenditure

Narra Ganga Devi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 243/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 243/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Narra Ganga Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer,] Vijayawada. Ward-2(3), Pan: Anwpn8051F Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 148

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 108 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below ... appropriate orders granting relief as prayed for.” 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, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within

Chilakala Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/VIZ/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 211/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24) Chilakala Srinivasa Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ablpc6935C 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 : 24/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 194ASection 194Q

submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On 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

Gunisetty Sudharani, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.187/Viz/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gunisetty Sudha Rani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D.No. 5-156, Main Road, Ward-4(2), Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh – 530027. Pan: Antpg7996D (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 : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

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

The Farmers Service Co-Operative Limited, Srikakulam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 166/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.166/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Farmers Service Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1, Srikakulam. Srikakulam. Pan: Aabtt4377L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 122 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below ... days in filing the appeal.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the 3 prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within

Sivanandaguru Educational and Cultural Trust, Jaggayyapet Mandal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 165/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 165/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sivanandaguru Educational & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cultural Trust, Exemption Ward, D.No. 43-2, Balusupadu Village, Rajahmundry. Jaggayyapet Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh – 52115. Pan: Aadts4140A (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 : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 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

Konizerla Sri Tilak Pacs, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 136/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.136/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Konizerla Sri Tilak Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-126 Konizerla, Penugolanu Ward-3(5), Post, Gampalagudem Mandal, Vijayawada. Krishna District, Andhr Pradesh. Pan: Aabak2512K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271FSection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed U/s. 144 of the Act dated

Surendra Kumar Kapur., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-22, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 1354/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1354/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surendra Kumar Kapur ………. Appellant (Pan: Afxpk4223K) Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.06.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2016. I.T.A. No. 1354/Kol/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Surendra Kumar Kapur 2. Though Registry Has Reported That This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 62 Days However, Considering The Date Of Receipt Of The Impugned Order, We Find That There Is No Delay In Filing This Appeal. We, Therefore, Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits.

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on various decisions but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from referring to the detail paper book containing 209 pages and also referring to various judgments

Shenbagam Hospitals Private Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corp. Circle 2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.836/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017 -2018) Shenbagam Hospitals Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 15A, North Cross, Income Tax, 3Rd Street, Corporate Circle 2, Anna Nagar, Madurai. Madurai 625 020. [Pan: Aahcs 1403M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Gouthami Manivasagam, IRS, JCIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

same are to be accepted as they are. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted case law paper book (Pages 1-59) and paper book containing 1-46 pages

Cottage Arts Emporium, Madurai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 324/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. M.S. Deeptha, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Hence this contention is rejected. The addition made by on this issue is confirmed and the ground is dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the actual cash deposit

Anotra Realators Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT (Central)- 1, Chennai

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

regard to the addition made of Rs.5,18,49,128/- u/s.69A of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Id.counsel for the assessee argued that the issue now stands covered by the decision of Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in the case

Ashok Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1394/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

aforesaid transactions before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall cause necessary enquiries as per law. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us ld.counsel for the assessee, first of all drew

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Fiance Comppany Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 515/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

from Form 36 thatthe order of CIT(A) dated 19.02.2020was communicated to the assessee on 19.02.2020itself. The assessee has to file appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order on or before 19.04.2020 but assessee actually filed this appeal on 21.10.2020, thereby there was a delay ... Prepaid finance charges claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.19,96,29,043/- is upheld.” ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee made arguments, apart from made before the AO and CIT(A) that similar treatment

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Fiance Comppany Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 514/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

Cholamandalam Investment &Finance Company Limited, Parrys, Chennai vs. ACIT- Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 384/CHNY/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 847/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)

Shri Siddeshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Muchandi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Belgaum

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 539/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Praveen P. Ghali, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

limine without condoning the aforesaid delay. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. A.R. submitted that assessee had made a mistake in filing the appeal before the first appellate authorities as against the intimation passed

Sri. Peddanna Mondyala Narasimha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1211/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shivakumar G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R

Section 250Section 69A

therefore, the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Against this ex-parte order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. A.R. at the time of hearing had submitted that the assessee was not able to appear before the ld. CIT(A) for the reason ... there is a good and sufficient reason and the delay has been properly explained and therefore we condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal 5.2 In so far as the merits of the case, we found that the ld. CIT(A) had issued notices on various dates

M/S Mspl Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 374/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. J. D. Mistri, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

could not find force in arguments vis-à-vis merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Thereafter, so many events such as transferring of appeals to Mumbai Bench had happened and finally the effective hearing commenced from