← 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

Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust, Surendranagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 952/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.952/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.953/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year : - Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Seva Trust Vs Ahmedabad R Samaj Seca Trust, Chaman Ramjibhai Patel Navalgadh, Dhrangadhra, Surendranagar – 363 320 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaxts 9852 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee-Trust Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmadabad [Hereinafter Referred As “The Ld.Cit(E)”], Dated 19-02-2024 & 07-03-2024, Wherein The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab & 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Were Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Grounds of appeal relating to ITA No.952/Ahd/2024: 4. The assessee-trust has explained the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the trust is located at very remote location and the trustees are not very conversant with the e-filing and portal

Shridariyapuri Sthankvasi Jain Sandh, Surendranagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 946/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : - Shridariyapuri Sthankvasi Jain The Cit (Exemption) Sandh Vs Ahmedabad Sayla Main Road, Main Bazaar Sayla Surendranagar – 363 436 Pan: Aalts 2673 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee-Trust Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmadabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(E)”], Dated 23-02-2024, Whereby The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Was Rejected By Ex-Parte Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

objects as required under the Act. On the Grounds of appeal: 4. The assessee-trust has explained the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted in the Affidavit dated 20-05-2004 on behalf of Assessee Shri Dariyapuri Sthankvasi Jain Sandh, which reads as under

Anand Dilipbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 898/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: 3

For Appellant: Shri Rameshchandra B. Patel &For Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

passing the appellate order, the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,62,383/-. 5. Aggrieved , the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal and ld. counsel for the assessee made argument before the Bench that ld. Addl./JCIT erred in sustaining the addition

Dashashrimali Radhanpura Jain Gyati, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 869/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : - Dashashrimali Radhanpura Jain The Cit (Exemption) Gyati, Vs Ahmedabad Radhanpuri Bazar, Nanbha Street, Bhavnagar – 364 001 (Gujarat) Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee-Trust Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmadabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(E)”], Dated 18-09-2023, Whereby The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

objects as required under the Act. On the Grounds of appeal: 4. The assessee-trust has explained the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted in the Affidavit dated 23-04-2004 of the Assessee’s Trustee Shri Jitendra Shantilal Sheth, which reads as under

Eden Education and Research Institute, Aurangabad vs. CIT, Examption, Pune

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

ITA 614/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.614/Pun/2024 Eden Education & Research Vs. The Cit (Exemption), Institute Aurangabad, Pune Rahim Nagar, Beed By Pass Road Bazar, Satara – 431 001 Aurangabad, Maharashtra Pan : Aaate7724P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282(1)

other law, thus chose to reject the application filed denying registration u/s.12AB of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice

Mindspace Versonal Information, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 612/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.612/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mindspace Ventures Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.4, Jay Nagar, Aurangabad Dashmeshnagar, Aurangabad 431 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aagcm3686H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Adjournment application rejectedFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

/NFAC who vide impugned order dated 15.01.2024 dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We have carefully perused the relevant material on record. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer completed

Everest Education Trust, Pune vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 587/PUN/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.587/Pun/2024 Everest Education Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), 963, Nana Peth, Pune Ardeshir Irani Baug, Nana Peth 411 002 Maharashtra Pan : Aaate2865R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

other law, thus chose to reject the application filed denying registration u/s.12AB of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT (Exemption

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Prakash Ramkrishna Pophale, Pune

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

ITA 283/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

raised by the appellant regarding this issue is allowed.” 9. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the fads and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in allowing

Bombay Gaslight Stores, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, ACIT, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 55/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Bombay Gaslight Stores Vs. Dcit/Acit 10-1-27/A, Asilmetta Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaab0207B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sreekar Vedula, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(1)Section 40

delayed appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee . 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : Incorrect PAN Designation: The Income Tax Department erroneously designated our entity as an Association of Persons (AOP) instead

Ram Prasad Sooda, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 13/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.13/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ram Prasad Sooda Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.39-7-39/1, Sector-7 Ward-2(1) Murali Nagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Amups8258A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.Kalyana Sundar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 203/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts ... with regard to interest U/s. 234C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 202/VIZ/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts ... with regard to interest U/s. 234C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 200/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts ... with regard to interest U/s. 234C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 199/VIZ/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts ... with regard to interest U/s. 234C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 198/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts ... with regard to interest U/s. 234C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Sunshine Educational Trust, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 750/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.750/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - V. Sunshine Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.8A, Daily Bazaar, Block No.19, Exemption Ward-2, Neyveli, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore Chennai. District, Neyveli Cuddalore, Block 18, Neyveli S.O. Pin-607 803 [Pan: Aawts 7853 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Katir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

passed by the Ld.CIT(E) on 30.04.2023, however, the assessee came to know about it only on 21.03.2024; and immediately thereafter filed the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, there was a delay of 266 days and the delay caused was not deliberate; and the Ld.AR stated that assessee would ... Form No.10AB u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act, was non-maintainable and he rejected it. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee Trust was created

Shashidhara, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1& Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 959/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Shashidhara, Vs. Ito, C/O Shadakshari Sri Banashakari Nilaya, Ward – 1 & Tps, Kuvempu Road, Besides Mant Kuvempu Road, Shivamogga. Shivamogga – 577 201. Pan : Czyps 1448 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Gowrish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Gowrish, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69C

addition made under section 69C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that assessee was not computer literate and did not access email on regular basis. It was further submitted that assessee

Christian Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Chickmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 551/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Christian Multipurpose Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Mathias Tower I G Road, Chikmagalur. Chikmagalur – 577 101. Pan : Aabac 7847 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Varun Bhat, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

Income Tax Act.” 4. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed two sets of Paper Books, one set of Paper Book comprising of the case laws relied on. In the other Paper Book comprising of 56 pages

Ken Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ken Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, C 103 Trivoli Apartment, Block Vento, Circle – 4(3)(1), 1St Floor, Segehalli Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Hoskote Road, Bengaluru – 560 067. Pan : Aaecp 8792 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is valid. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the grounds raised. 6. The learned Standing Counsel supported the Order of the CIT(A). 7. I have

DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Shree Ramkrishna Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is dismissed being not maintainable

ITA 518/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, SR. D.R
Section 250

effect is less than 50,00,000/-. As per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, the Revenue in precluded from filling any appeal before the Tribunal in case the tax effect involved in a case is less than Rs.50,00,000/- and this factual position has been fairly conceded