← 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

Shree Munisuvrat Swami Gangadham Tower Jain Sangh, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 166/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

case. Accordingly, he treated the impugned application as non-maintainable against which the decision of the Ld. CIT(E) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that in its reply dated 24.11.2023, the assessee had brought to the notice

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Fysolate Technologies, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Mithilesh SannareddyFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. DR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the Revenue along with a petition seeking ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 43 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 43 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

M/S Kadirur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 2, Kannur

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

ITA 104/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kadirur Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd., The Income Tax Kadirur, Officer, Thalassery, Ward – 2, Kannur, Kannur. Kerala – 670 642. Vs. Pan: Aaffk6859E Appellant Respondent : Shri Arun Raj .S, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri Arun Raj .S
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 51Section 80p

outset, it is submitted that, there is delay of 12 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR furnished affidavit for condonation of delay that reads as under: Page 2 of 16 Page 3 of 16 Page 4 of 16 2.1 In view of the above ... assessee could not file the appeal before this Tribunal well in time and by the time the appeal papers were prepared for filing, there arose delay of about 12 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. As reason for the delay in filing the present appeal

Deepak Kumar Shah, Ramganjmandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 426/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 68

assessee and confirmed the action of the AO 2.4 Now Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the prayer that it is a genuine transaction through banking channel and this amount was remitted in the account of the assessee

Mammunhi Mohammed Abdurrahiman Talangara, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 848/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Varun BramhechaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37Section 37(1)

Audit Report in Form 3CD wherein it was reported that the aforesaid amount was payment made to political parties. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal the Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant reiterated the submissions made before

Nisha Thomas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-Drp-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2764/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. There is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay and praying for condonation of delay. The ld. AR in this ... regard submitted that since the assessee had to physically sign Form No. 36 to file the appeal before the Tribunal there was a slight delay in the physical paper to reach India. The ld. AR accordingly prayed for condonation of delay. The DR on the other hand vehemently opposed that

Bharat Flooring and Tiles (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4200/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehli M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 37

granted. 5. Not being satisfied with the above benefit of amortization/depreciation granted by the CIT(A), the Appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal asserting the claim of deduction of INR 25,28,371/- as revenue expenditure. 6. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant 3 appearing before

Matrix Security and Surveillance Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the A

ITA 206/HYD/2024[2022-2023]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23) Matrix Security & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Surveillance (P) Limited Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcm3902F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. E.V. Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A. E.V. Sri KrishnaFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(1)

Officer u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT (A,) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reasons for mismatch of TDS between Form 26AS of the relevant

Matrix Security and Survelliance Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the A

ITA 205/HYD/2024[2021-2022]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.205 & 206/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23) Matrix Security & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Surveillance (P) Limited Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcm3902F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. E.V. Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A. E.V. Sri KrishnaFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(1)

Officer u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT (A,) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reasons for mismatch of TDS between Form 26AS of the relevant

Palle Sathish Goud, Chintal Basti vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Kondapur

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

ITA 559/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.559/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Palle Sathish Goud Vs. Income Tax Officer Chintal Basti Ward 7(1) Hyderabad Kondapur, Pan:Aijpp5303N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.Sheetal Sariin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt.Sheetal Sariin, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

Rs.10.00 lakhs and taxed u/s 115BBE of the act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has received

Shaileshbhai Bha vs. Angbhai Chavda, Bhavnagarvs.the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 248/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

grounds that the assessee has not complied with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A). 5. Still Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with the Tribunal. The assessee has raised as many as six grounds of appeal before the Tribunal , both on legal as well factual ground, challenging the additions

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

inconsistent statement as pointed out by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and such circumstances, we find both the Commissioner of income lax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified seeing aside deletion as the Assessing Officer, without taking step for verification of the Income Tax Return of the creditors, look ... before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was allowed by the Appellate Authority as per order dated 27.5.2017. The Revenue thereafter preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal. 3.1 Before the Assessing Officer, the case of the assessee

Snnehshilp Constructions, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 413/NAG/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Milind BhusariFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 40

estimation of the net profit from contract receipts. Against the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal decided the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 28/08/2015, in ITA No.113/Nag/2009, and set-aside ... upheld. The ground of appeal raised is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” The assessee being aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below

Spark Mall and Parking Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 33/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

frame the assessment in accordance with law. On being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Spark Mall and Parking Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.33/Nag./2022 5. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle ( Exemption ), Nagpur vs. M/S Shri Dadasaheb Gawai, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2/NAG/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 12A

115BBC for anonymous donation is not found sustainable and hereby, deleted.‖ On being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative (―the learned D.R.‖) submitted that the assessee has failed to submit details of the donors and also not provided PAN Card

ITO, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Encore It Solutions Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 630/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 & C.O No.28/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No.630/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Encore It Solutions Pvt. Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Ltd., Chennai – 600 034. Htc Towers, No.41 Gst Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaace 8044K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shrig. Suresh, Jcit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriG. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Thus, the AO/TPO is directed to delete the TP adjustment to the extent of Rs.2,50,08,077/-. Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have perused the case records including

Manchaiah Shivalingaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 944/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeymanchaiah Shivalingaiah The Income Tax Officer No. 365/Ss, 1St Main, 2Nd Cross Ward - 1(2)(5) 3Rd Phase, Manjunath Nagar Vs. Bmtc Building, 80 Ft. Road Rajajinagar, Bengaluru 560010 Koramangala Pan – Bosps6014P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Likith Patel, M.K., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gahle, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062552904(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer, In The Manner In Which He Did. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Providing Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant To Put Forth The Submissions Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Likith Patel, M.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gahle, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed for non- prosecution by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing both the parties fairly conceded that the assessment order as well as the order

Shri. Naagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar, Dharawad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 550/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeynagesh Kanaiyalal Thakkar The Income Tax Officer Lovely Sweets, Baradan Saal Ward - 2(1), Hubli Hubli Sarafkatta S.O. Vs. Hubli 580020 Pan – Aaupt7785P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060678544(1) Dated 08.02.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Confirmed The Additions Made Under Section 56(2)(Vii) Which Is Against The Facts. 2. The Addition Confirmed Is Against The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act 3. The Beneficial Provision Is Read In A Too Rigid Way So As To Deny The Benefit Conferred By The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S. Addl CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

merit in assessee's contention. Accordingly ground no. 2 is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising 20 pages enclosing therein copies of the followings: - 1. Written submission before Hon'ble ITAT

Bijadi Vitta Geetha, Shiralkoppa vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1089/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Bijadi Vitta Geetha, The Income Tax # 2856, Gandhinagar, Officer, 1St Cross, Ward – 2, Shiralkoppa, Shivamogga. Karnataka – 577 428. Vs. Pan: Bsupg8856K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Advocate, Standing
Section 68

dated 24.11.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there was delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR filed an affidavit of assessee dated 04.06.2024, wherein it is stated that, the email ID and the mobile no. reflecting ... aware of the appellate order being passed and therefore there is a reasonable cause in the delay caused to file the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation submitted that no affidavit has been furnished of the alleged consultant in support

Mrs Rinky Kapoor, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 1862/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. VinitaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

earned by the assessee on sale of shares.” 3. It is noted that there is a delay of 509 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal for which an affidavit is placed on record by the assessee explaining the reasons for the said delay. From the perusal ... find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the assessing officer. In sum, appeal is dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for restoration of the matter back to the file