← 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

Prem Chand Yadav, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow - New

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

ITA 406/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

vide his impugned ex-parte order dated 30.12.2022 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The main ground raised by the assessee is that the ld. ITA No.406/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 5 CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal

Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 39/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Bhardwaj Harshvadan Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward – 1(2)(3), Vs. 201, A Block, Jasper Now Ward – 1(2)(1), Homes, Nr. Sears Towers, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat, 390015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arhpp4034D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 01/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 11.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As Per Registry, There Is A Delay Of 91 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Received By Him On 18.11.2023 And

For Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

39/Ahd/2024 [Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 – the time limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was expiring on 18.01.2024. The appeal filed by the assessee on 09.01.2024 was, therefore, within the limitation period and there was no delay. Further that there was change of Counsel

SHI vs. Hakti Sahkari Patsanstha Limited, Sataravs.PCIT Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 545/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.545/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

section 80P(4) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. Pr.CIT, the appellant society is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates

M/S. Gordhansingh S Rajpurohit, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel

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

ITA 512/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

business expediency could not be established. Para 8 of his order refers. 5 ITA No.512/PUN/2024, AY 2009-10 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 15.07.2019 set aside the Ld. CIT(A)’s order and restored it back ... appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsing the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”). 7. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in second round reiterating the same grounds taken earlier. 8. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 06.06.2024. There was no representation from

Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited, Elphinstone Road West, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1456/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1455 & 1456/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Munjal &
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 28Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Assailing the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration

Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited, Elphinstone Road West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1455/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1455 & 1456/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Munjal &
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 28Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Assailing the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad vs. Sunil Kumar Kumar, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.76/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Kumar Ward 9(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aqppk9880P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ch Rajeswara Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR
Section 68

68/69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned DR Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy submitted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim with necessary evidences before the Assessing

Aatman Foundation Trust, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 138/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 12A

following grounds:- Non-Genuineness of Activities.” Aggrieved by the above order of the Id. CIT(E), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds as stated here in above. Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the ld. AR of the assessee filed

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 5848/Mum/2017-Assessee's appeal. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act and adding the disallowance

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 801A

before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 5848/Mum/2017-Assessee's appeal. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act and adding the disallowance ... CENVAT / VAT directed the AO to rework the deduction based on actual expenditure and restrict the disallowance accordingly. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We noticed that on identical issues the co-ordinate bench

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 343/AHD/2022[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 1996-97 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. The Dy.Cit Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vs Circle-1(1)(1) Race Course Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacg 8540 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar & Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”), Which Was Filed Against The Order Of By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) U/S.143(3) R.W.S 254 Regarding The Unpaid Electricity Duty Under Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 1996-97. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit Asst. Year : 1996-97

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

detailed verification of facts, allowed the matter and deleted the additions. 3. The Revenue, aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A)'s order, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s order passed in ITA No.1930/Ahd/2001 dated 03-03-2008, confirmed the additions, holding that Electricity Duty is covered by section

Anuradha Ashok Satbhai, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 482/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

cogent and sufficient reasons to enable condonation of the delay. 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to para 3.1 of the order

Mr. Anil Ananda Pokharnikar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), Pune

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

ITA 355/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69

appeal ex-parte for non-compliance of notice(s) of hearing dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted it was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is having reseller business

Shree Dattakrupa Foundation, Ahmednagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 327/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 268 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... provisional approval granted u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Exemption

Shree Dattakrupa Foundation, Ahmednagar vs. Commissioner of Incom Tax Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 268 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... provisional approval granted u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Exemption

Surana Mutha Bhansali, Pune vs. ACIT-Circle 5 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1442/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 43CSection 80I

claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of law and scheme

Bsk Agencies, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 266/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.266/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bsk Agencies Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward 1 Pan:Aagfb1285Q Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin DR
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69A

rejected the cash book submitted by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned AR also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

Bollam Sampath Kumar Jewellers Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 265/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 265/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bollam Sampath Kumar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Jewellers (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Warangal Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb4496H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case the assessee had filed document and information before the learned

Asha Rani Pandya, Indore vs. CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniasha Rani Pandya Dcit/Acit-1(1) 389 1Ad- Scheme No.74C Indore Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aqqpp7081A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Shri Prakash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

noncompliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section

Grace Infrastructure Private Ltd, Puducherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

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

ITA 981/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)

days) and the ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no delay in filing the appeal, since assessee has already filed