← 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

Nadiad Taluka Prathmik Shikshakoni Dhiran & Grahak Sahakari Mandali Limited, Nadiad vs. The PCIT-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 170/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessing Officer, the assessee society consulted the present Chartered Accountant (CA) who advised in Feb 2023 that the assessee Society should file the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. Thus, the reason explained by the assessee appears to be genuine and hence

Sridhar Gurram, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 640/HYD/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jun 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 640/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Sridhar Gurram Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International Taxation)1 Pan:Ajgpg2546Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

Home Cons (As shown in bank account statement)” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee being an NRI, does not have any source of earning in India and that

Rajesh Jagdish Trivedi, Chennai vs. ITO, Con Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 669/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 669/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Rajesh Jagdish Trivedi, The Income Tax Officer, 312, Mint St, Parrys, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 6(1), Park Town Ho, Chennai. Chennai – 600 003. Pan: Aabpt 9341G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

concealment of income and the same is upheld. Grounds no. 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are hereby dismissed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the alleged SIT report considered

Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Copr Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 587/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Easyaccess Financial Services Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, New No.18, Old No.40, Vs. Corporate Ward 2(1), Mussuri Subramaniam Salai, Chennai. (Oliver Road), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aabce 4646G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Lavanya, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060282095(1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.09.2017. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ao For Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act, As The Ao During The Original Assessment Proceedings Has Formed An Opinion After Seeking Explanation & After Examining The Present Issue Of Factoring Of Income U/S.143(3) Of The Act. Hence, Now Reopening Is Bad In Law. The Assessee Also Raised The Interconnected Issue, Which Is On Merits That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Beig Factoring Income In The Hands Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Lavanya, FCA &For Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

account of factoring income is sustained and ground no. 3 is dismissed. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts narrated by ld.AR for the assessee before us are that during

P. Ravichandran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 54B

calling for the remand report by the CIT(A) which fact has been admitted by the assessee himself. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. First of all, the ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the assessment order and stated the facts that the assessee

Sarvodaya Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 745/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Sarvodaya Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1 & Tps, Carstreet Barkur, Brahmavara Udupi, Udupi. Udupi – 576 210. Pan : Aaeas 9576 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ramnathan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ramnathan, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 40Section 43B

this regard, which the appellant has failed to establish.” 4. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) that assessment order has not been served on the assesssee but sent

Pallavi Eknath Ghule, Nanded vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Pune

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

ITA 829/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.829/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha
Section 143(3)Section 54B

filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The ld. AR submits that the CIT(A) though extracted the written submissions made by the assessee, had failed

Usha Ashok Sakure, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(2), Pune

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

ITA 781/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

which includes long term capital gain of Rs.1,27,88,100/-. 3. There is a delay of 22 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit 2 explaining the reasons for such delay which ... passed by him, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and is not well conversant with the intricacies

Mr. Sanjay Shyamrao Kadam, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar, Ahednagar

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

ITA 702/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)

filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The ld. AR submits that the appellant could not cause any appearance either before the AO/CIT(A) owing

Srinivas Kesineni, J Auto Nagar, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 34/VIZ/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.34/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Srinivas Kesineni Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of #48-16-11/3B Income Tax Mahanadu Road Circle-2(1) J.Auto Nagar Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Acrpk5878R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shanti Pawan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised grounds with regard to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.34/Viz/2024, A.Y.2020-21 Srinivas Kesineni, Vijayawada

The Gudivada Co-Op Urban Bank Limited, Gudivada vs. Assitant Commisioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.03/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2017-18) The Gudivada Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Limited, Income Tax, Gudivada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aaaat 2586 R Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed

Chiranjeevi Sahini, Srikakulam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

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

ITA 189/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 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, Rajamahendravaram vs. Seetha Venkata Lakshmi Ravipati, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 16/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

NFAC allowed the appeal of the assessee. On being 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)-NFAC is erroneous

Vgr Diabetes Education and Awareness Charitable Trust, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 102/VIZ/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2024 & 102/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Vgr Diabetes Education & Vs. Income Tax Officer Awareness Charitable Trust (Exemption Ward) D.No.40-5-19/18B Rajahmundry Vgr Diabetes Specialities Hospital A S Ramarao Road Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada [Pan : Aabtv8428J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

registration u/s 80G as infructuous and rejected as non-maintainable. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad is contrary

Vgr Diabetes Education and Awareness Charitable Trust, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 101/VIZ/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2024 & 102/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Vgr Diabetes Education & Vs. Income Tax Officer Awareness Charitable Trust (Exemption Ward) D.No.40-5-19/18B Rajahmundry Vgr Diabetes Specialities Hospital A S Ramarao Road Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada [Pan : Aabtv8428J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

registration u/s 80G as infructuous and rejected as non-maintainable. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad is contrary

K 637 Pasur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. ITO, Ncw2(3), Erode

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

ITA 697/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(16)Section 2(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Court in the case of Citizens Co- operative Society Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in [2017] 84 taxmann.com 114 (SC). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copy of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and drew our attention

Naveen, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 2(5), Coimbatore

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

ITA 559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

hence, the action of the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, confirming the addition. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the assessee. We noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A)-NFAC

M/S. Sri. Vasavi Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha, Kollegal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar

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

ITA 829/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sri Vasavi Vividoddesha Souharda Vs. Ito, Sahakari Niyamitha, Ward – 1, 7/454A, Srinivasa Mansion, I Floor, Chamarajanagar. New Bus Stand Road, Kollegal – 571 440. Pan : Aadas 1521 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vageesh Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Vageesh Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 2(19)Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka). 4. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that co-operative banks are only species of a society and the receipt of interest income from such co-operative

The Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 676/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Savanoor Co-Operative Agricultural Bank Ltd., Puttur. Savanoor – 574 202. Pan : Aaeat 1118 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srikrishna, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ramnathan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srikrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ramnathan, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee from its dealing it had with its members. 4. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that on identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year

Rahul Ramesh Shelar, Thane vs. ACIT Circle-2, Kalyan

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

ITA 459/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Rahul Ramesh Shelar Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Pitru Chhaya Sadan, Income Tax, Circle 2 Near Railway Station, Ward No.6, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Vangani West, Thane, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada Maharashtra – 421503 Kalyan (W), Mumbai - 421301 Pan : Asbps3128C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

appeal as infructuous Ld. CIT(A) referred to the first submission of the assessee on 29.01.2021 only. 6. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contesting that even though the assessee had requested the Ld. CIT(A) to keep the proceedings in abeyance until the issue of Form