“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

Raparthy Venugopal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 11(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 419/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 419/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Raparthy Venugopal Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(4) Pan: Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Helan Ruby Jesindha,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

complaint and non-responsive during the assessement proceedings. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notices sent from the IT Portal were sent to wrong email, therefore

Deputy Commissioner of Inome Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad

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

ITA 454/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132

assessee and sustained the addition made towards undisclosed income. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the seized material ... Nama Seetaiah 17. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 18. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos 7 to 11 of the assessee’s appeal and Ground No.2

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 393/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1523/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132

M/S Kantar Gdc India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Tns India Pvt Ltd), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2261/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2261/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Kantar Gdc India (P) Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ltd (Formerly Tns India (P) Circle 2(2) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcn2278F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Harpreet Singh Ajmani राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Harpreet Singh AjmaniFor Respondent: : Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)

suggested by the TPO and also disallowance of trade mark license fees. 8. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.1 & 2 of assessee’s appeal is TP adjustment in respect

Rajendra Anchalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 275/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma(सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "याियक सद"य) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rajendra Anchalia Income Tax Officer, Ward- 12/1, Hunger Ford Street, Vs. 32(4), Kolkata. Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Acspa0012G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(3)

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before this Tribunal: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-Law, to the extent to which ... appeal.” 3. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that there is a delay of 1689 Days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and an affidavit dated 12.02.2024 showing the reasons for the delay is available in file wherein it has been stated that the income tax matters

The Indcoserve, Nilgiris vs. ITO Ward 1 Ooty, Ooty

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

ITA 102/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

also not eligible for claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, he confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee

Hotel Radhika, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 755/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.755/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 270A

filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. The quantum appeal – ITA No.754/PUN/2024

Hotel Radhika, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 754/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.754/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(a)

/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that

Avinash Rajendrakumar Gholap, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 753/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.753/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal ex parte. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. On mere perusal of the contents

Subhash Sadashiv Sathe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 14(4), Pune

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

ITA 745/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.745/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 143(3)

filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC 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. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of 5. the appellant despite due service of notice

Mohana Krishna Agencies, Srikakulam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 83/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mohana Krishna Agencies, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-1, Pan: Aavfm 0565B Srikakulam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 31/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270A

which works out to Rs. 4 41,23,055/-. 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

Ganchi Lakshman Kumar, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.7/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ganchi Lakshman Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Sri Raj Computers & Mobiles Ward-2 D.No.33-1-16 Kakinada Opp.Glass House Centre Main Road, Kakinada [Pan : Aexpl9144F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri,DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44A

Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), 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 (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Society for Training and Caring, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Guntur

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

ITA 63/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.63/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Society For Training & Caring Vs. Income Tax Officer E-1, Ganapathi Homes Exemption Ward 6Th Line, Pandaripuram Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aacas9356E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri,DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee and find that the assessee was suffering from ill health, therefore, it is a valid reason for non-filing of the appeal before the Tribunal within time. In view of the same, the 3 I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2024, A.Y.2018-19 Society for Training and Caring, Guntur condonation petition filed by the assessee ... Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), 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 (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Purnachandra Rao Mandava, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 52/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Purnachandra Rao Mandava Vs. Income Tax Officer Ambica Street, Powerpet Ward-2 Eluru Eluru [Pan : Aizpm5102C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised grounds in Form No.36. Subsequently, the assessee filed a petition for substitution of original grounds with revised grounds of appeal and pleaded

Kommuru Narasimha Rao(HUF), Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Vijayawada

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

ITA 48/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.48/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kommuru Narasimha Rao (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.29-28-21, Dasari Vari Street Ward-2(2) Suryaraopet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aalhk1984Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The under the facts and circumstance of the case the order passed

Sri Keerthi Projects, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 181/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Keerthi Projects Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.3-20-14, Near Recruiting Office Income Tax Pattabhipuram Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Abjfs1107Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 4Section 40

upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 3 I.T.A. No.181/Viz/2024, A.Y.2018-19 Sri Keerthi Projects, Guntur 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income

Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Aghpm 1625 Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ramprasad Tnssjms, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 31/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri Ramprasad TNSSJMS, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee filed a petition along with affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay in his condonation petition ... appeal is beyond the control of the assessee and therefore taking a lenient view the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 4. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee

Mogalapalli Mahalakshmi, Visakhapatnam vs. Incomw Tax Officer (Ward International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mogalapalli Mahalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.404, Sitara Enclave Ward (International Opp.Amg Hospital Taxation) Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Augpm0457M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 144Section 148

Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), 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 (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Boina Vasudevarao & Sons, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 139/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Boina Vasudevarao & Sons Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.13-06, Market Street Ward-1 Narsannapeta Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan :Aadfb6247C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), 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 (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also