← 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

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 110/IND/2015[2013-14 (for first three quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13 to 15, which reads thus; “13. We have perused the orders and heard the rival ... order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal wherein the following arguments were raised: Page 18 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 109/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13 to 15, which reads thus; “13. We have perused the orders and heard the rival ... order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal wherein the following arguments were raised: Page 18 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea

Dr. Agarwals Health Care Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1408/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1407 & 1408/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19 Dr. Agarwals Health Care The Principal Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax-1, 3Rd Floor, Buhari Towers, Chennai. No.4, Moores Road Off Greams Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aadcd 4418M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 10(34)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

verify the following two issues i) disallowance u/s.14A of the Act & ii) loss on sale of assets. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to the facts regarding the disallowance on the issue of exempt income

Dr. Agarwals Health Care Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1407/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai01 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1407 & 1408/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19 Dr. Agarwals Health Care The Principal Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax-1, 3Rd Floor, Buhari Towers, Chennai. No.4, Moores Road Off Greams Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aadcd 4418M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 10(34)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

verify the following two issues i) disallowance u/s.14A of the Act & ii) loss on sale of assets. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to the facts regarding the disallowance on the issue of exempt income

Allied Engineers and Elastomers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1687/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Shri Rahul KFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69C

from M/s.Giriraj Enterprises. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the CIT(A). 4. The ld. AR submitted that the second reopening is done beyond four years and therefore the proviso to section

Income Tax Officer- 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sandeep Estate Development Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4578/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Income Tax Officer-8(1)(1) Sandeep Estate Development Private Office Of The Income Tax Officer- Limited 8(1)(1), Room No. 651, 23, Chanchal Smruti Chs Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 25, G. D. Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Wadala, Mumbai-400 031 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 5329 K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Shri Parsoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Parsoon Kabra
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 263

prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue vide order dated 23.03.2018, thereby setting aside the assessment order. 5. The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the order of the ld.PCIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act and the Tribunal vide order dated 25.02.2019 in ITA No. 3637/Mum/2018

Chhaya Vikas Shah Legal Heir & Wife of Late Vikas Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/AHD/2023[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Ahmedabad who vide order dated 18.01.2011, confirmed the addition on account of Unaccounted income/receipt of Rs.2,77,46,780/-. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which vide its order in IT(SS)A Nos. 311 to 313/Ahd/2011 dated 21.03.2017, allowed relief and confirmed the additions as detailed below: Particulars

Dhiraj Raman Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 908/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine, without going into the merits of the additions. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the matter was called on, none represented on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice

Kubix Realties LLP, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle -14 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1260/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1260/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 292BSection 3

Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant company is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. The ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submits that the approval obtained from the Joint Commissioner of Income

Shree Estates, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 469/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.469/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Estates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14(1) Pan:Adifs9997B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 68

appellant under the head capital gain. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri M.V. Prasad, CA, referring to the petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground submitted

Banda Satyanaraya, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.408/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Banda Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(4) Pan:Acepb2895C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T.Chaitanya Kumar, राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate T.Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

between the secured loan and investment in the said property. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Pr.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned Pr. CIT is erred in setting aside the assessment order by exercising

Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Tenali vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 73/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 7-14-9, Harikrishna Ward-1, Medical Agencies, Battavari Tenali. Street, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Akzpk3519M (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 : 04/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271ASection 69A

infructuous and is therefore dismissed.” Aggrieved by the above stated decision of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, 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

Krishna Chaitanya Durgasi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/VIZ/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Blekrishna Chaitanya Durgasi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Eluru Flat No. 507, Om Sai Residency Huda Trade Center Behind Punjab National Bank Lingampally, Hyderabad – 500019 Telangana Pan: Ahkpd6655R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Durgasi 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 71 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 ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 71 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, Assessee

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 249/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (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 : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 84 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 ... prescribed time limit with a delay of 3 84 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 238/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 77 days in each case (ITA No. 237 & 238/Viz/2024) in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeals, the Ld. AR drew my attention to the affidavits filed by the assessee along ... prescribed time limit with a delay of 77 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 237/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 77 days in each case (ITA No. 237 & 238/Viz/2024) in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeals, the Ld. AR drew my attention to the affidavits filed by the assessee along ... prescribed time limit with a delay of 77 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs. 4 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

Jami Pradhamika Vyavasayasharakara Parapathi Sangham Ltd., Vizianagaram vs. Income-Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 206/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 206/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Jami Pradhamika Vyavasaya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakara Parapathi Vizianagaram. Sanghamltd., Vizianagaram. Pan: Aabaj1927F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

appeal without going into the merits of the case. 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 Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing

M G Gopal, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M.G. Gopal, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Afwpm6317H Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ma Rahim, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri MA Rahim, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

relief to the assessee and partly allowed 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: 4 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case in confirming

Mubaise Parayil, Iritty vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Kannur

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

ITA 383/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record

Sri Karpagavinayagar Education and Charitable Trust, Palani vs. Income Tax Officer, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 263/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.263/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Charitable Trust, 1, Thalayuthu, Exemptions Ward, Palani 624 618. Madurai. [Pan: Aagts7098L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate & Shri B.K. Gopilal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Denying Exemption

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)

appellant. The grounds are dismissed.” 5. As not satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for the above mentioned grounds. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a trust