← 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

Veena Shah, Panipat vs. Pr CIT, Rohtak

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1222/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

that assessment order u/s 143(3) is passed within the prescribed time limit as per the Income Tax Act.” Aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Counsel argued that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. It was contended ... viii) read with 57(iv) and section 145A(b) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in that regard. 22. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by learned counsel

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi vs. Rajiv Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 295(2)(mm)

Rs.15,50,00,000/- . 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 Rajiv Kumar 6. We find that

Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. DCIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 82/LKW/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Kumar Gupta V. The Dcit-6 314/30, Mirza Mandi Lucknow Chowk, Lucknow Pan:Adgpg1431J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 68

allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Vide ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal, the assessee assails the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC that

Randheja Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 250

affidavit filed by the assessee and the CA of the society, it is undisputed fact that the impugned delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal by 581 days is attributable to their earlier Chartered Accountant, Shri Nilesh Pandya, who has stated to be suffering from COVID and office work

Bhartiya Vichar Sadhana Foundation, Pune vs. CIT, (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 646/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvnesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

according to him the assessee did not furnish explanation to the alleged discrepancies. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and both the grounds relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that vide letter dated 01.03.2024 the copy of which is placed at pages

Sonai Pratishthan, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 360/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresonai Pratishthan Cit(Exemption), Pune At Post Gokhali, Vs. Tal – Indapur, Pune – 413106 Pan: Aagas7853Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R C Doshi Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 26-06-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2024

For Appellant: Shri R C DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A

assessee as non-maintainable and accordingly, rejected the same. 3. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to lack of technical knowledge, the concerned person of the trust could

Pandurang Antu Jadhav, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, ITO Ward Satara

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

ITA 1415/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee was not well conversant with the technology for which he could

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Satara vs. M/S. Shri Bhairavnath Multi State Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Satara

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

ITA 2484/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2484/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward-3, Vs. M/S. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Satara Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., 48, Laxminagar, Deccan Chowk, Phaltan, Tal. Phaltan, Dist. Satara-415523 Maharashtra Pan : Aaeas8344J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reliance on the decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal and CBDT Circular No.18/2015, dt. 02.11.2015. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find this issue is no more res integra

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

further appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the finding of the assessing officer. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as facts reproduced above. 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant

Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 373/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 144B

present liability and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has made the total provision for expenses of Rs.2,81,14,669/- i.e. on account of provision

Meenakshi Energy and Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.291/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Meenakshi Energy & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Infrastructure Holdings (P) Circle 5 (1) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm6917L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate Shri A.V. Raghuram रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(Cit)Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(CIT)DR
Section 72(1)

Meenakshi Energy and Infrastructure Holdings P Ltd 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating interest

Ahlers India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 524/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 524/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No.39, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax,, The Trapezium, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. Pan: Aaeca 5688H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059291012 (1) Dated 02.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 16.02.2016. The Impugned Giving Effect To The Order Of The Tribunal Was Framed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai Vide Order Dated 22.08.2017. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing Expenses Paid To Various Non-Resident Parties For Non-Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,26,73,426/-. This Is The Only Limited Issue On Merits But Assessee Has Raised Various Other Issues Of Proper Opportunity Etc., Which Will Be Dealt With Later.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

view of the above, the appeal is treated as infructuous in terms of Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020. 3.2 Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal again and the Tribunal in ITA No.441/CHNY/2022 vide order dated 21.07.2022 remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction ... judicial views on the subject, it is held that the disallowance made by the AO is in order.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admitted facts are that the assessee is engaged

M/S. Sjs Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

Before us, the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the NFAC. In our opinion, under similar circumstances, the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal for the assessment year 2018-19 in ITA No.327/Bang/2024, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.5.2024 held as under: “2. The main issue in this appeal ... Karn.), held as under: “9. If the Tribunal had exercised its discretion to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner-company in its appeal before the Tribunal for condoning the delay and found there was no sufficient cause made out by the petitioner and had consequently dismissed the application seeking

Mohammed Asim Naveed, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(3), Karnataka

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

ITA 670/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Mohammed Asim Naveed, Vs. Ito, Flat No.102, Mehdipatnam, Ward – 5(3)(3), Hyderabad – 500 028. Karnataka. Pan : Acxpn 7513 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mohammed Afzal, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Mohammed Afzal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250

assessee has given merely an explanation for delay in column 15 to Form 35 filed before the CIT(A)]. Accordingly, the appeal before the Tribunal is restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file a proper delay condonation application explaining why there is delay

Muniswamy Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1070/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma &
Section 144Section 69A

verification upheld the addition made in the assessment order. 2.7 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue needs to be verified based on the evidences. 3.1 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied

M/S. Arham Mitra Mandal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions)-Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

same was dismissed by the PCIT(E) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act on 22.09.2023, the assessee trust immediately filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 11.12.2023. The relevant portion of the condonation application reads as follows: • The CIT(A)NFAC passed an order on 03.08.2022, under section ... dated 03.08.2022, assessee admits that the same was served on it on the same day i.e., 03.08.2022. Therefore, the appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been field on or before 03.10.2022. However, the same has been filed only on 11.12.2023. Even before the CIT(A)'s Order, assessee

Smt. Sneha Ankit Salecha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Ward, 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Jalaj Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68Section 69C

commission. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee has purchased 20,000 shares

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sonata Information Technology Limited, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1359/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 40

Assessment Year 2014-15. 7. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material ... held the same to be allowable. Rest of the expenditure was held to be disallowable. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We have heard both the parties in the light of the materials placed before us. We find that the issue regarding

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Sonata Information Technology Limited, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1352/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 40

Assessment Year 2014-15. 7. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material ... held the same to be allowable. Rest of the expenditure was held to be disallowable. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We have heard both the parties in the light of the materials placed before us. We find that the issue regarding

Aadinath Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4004/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi-CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 694Section 69C

under section 68 of the Act. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the sole reason for re-opening the assessment