← 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

Transpek Industry Limited, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Ncome Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1080/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2020-21 Transpek Industry Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Lilleria 1038, Vs Income Tax Gotri Sevasi Road, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara-390021 Vadodara Gujarat Pan: Aaact8639B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26-10-2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-[National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)] [Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”], Which Upheld The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

assessment year in the challan to claim the credit. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. On the grounds of appeal: 6. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Assessee submitted that the CPC made the addition without

Vijay Kantilal Vora, Vadodara vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1821/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kantilal Vora The Dcit 201, Shrushti Flats, Vs Circle-4(2)(1), Opp. Geb Sub Station, Vadodara Gotri Road, Vadodara-390021 Pan: Aakpv3542 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4 Vadodara (Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 30.1.2018, Relating To The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred As “The Act” For The Assessment Year2011-12. 2. Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: Vijay Kantilal Vora Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

upheld the addition made by the AO. 7 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 7.1. There was a delay of 102 days in filing an appeal before us. The assessee filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit stating

M/S Nisarg Developers, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 744/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.744/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishank ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43C

rejecting the contentions of the appellant confirmed the addition made by the AO. 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 issue in the present that arises ... rejecting the contentions of the appellant confirmed the addition made by the AO. 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 issue in the present that arises

Venkata Narayana Gaddam, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 478/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.478/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkata Narayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Gaddam, Nalgonda Ward-1 Pan:Afbpg8798K Nagonda (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

which was deposited prior to the demonetization period. 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 the remaining Rs.7,50,000/- earned by the assessee from agricultural income and from

Sri Gouri Jarathi, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Warangal

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

ITA 473/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.473/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Gouri Jarathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward 3 Pan:Bcypj5294C Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Sole Ground Raised By The Assessee Is On The Appellate Order Passed By The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.38,00,500/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Without Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

evidence dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that although full details were given before the Assessing Officer as well as the learned

Dilip Kumar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1256/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee has been rejected by upholding the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that documentary evidences such as balance sheet, bank statement

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Ms.Aarthi Scans, Kovilpatti

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

ITA 75/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

decided to be bad in law as the return of income was already assessed u/s 143(3).” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.Senior DR relied on the assessment order and also relied on reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. The ld. Senior

Agrasen Primses Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

ITA 125/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Parba Rana (Adv.)&For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nanubhai N Desai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statisti...

ITA 836/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Dr. Tusharkumar Desai
Section 68

deleted all the three On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted all the three additions. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising

Asst.CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Nanubhai N Desai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statisti...

ITA 809/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Dr. Tusharkumar Desai
Section 68

deleted all the three On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted all the three additions. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising

Milan Mahendra Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 561/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

various notices issued for hearing of the case but no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee raised the legal issue by submitting that notice dated 23.01.2006, issued by the ld. Assessing Officer

Rajesh Jugraj Madhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 326/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Rajesh Jugraj Madhani Deputy Commissioner Of 301, Saloni Apartment, Income Tax – 4(3), 56Th Road, T.P.S. Iii, Vs. Mumbai Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092 (Pan : Aahpm3871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jay Thacker, Fca Revenue : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jay Thacker, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

response from the assessee, ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating on the grounds dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Rajesh Jugraj Madhani, AY 2016-17 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee specifically referred to ground no.1 and 2 raised before

Chhothmal Ganesharam Suthar, Mumbai vs. CIT-(A) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 203/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order, dated 03/08/2023, in view of the fact that the Appellant had failed to file any response/reply to the notice of hearing dated 13/01/2021, 28/04/2023 and 15/07/2023 issued by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also noted that despite enablement of communication window no response was received from the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the above order of dismissal passed by the CIT(A), the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. As per the registry, there was a dela

For Appellant: Shri Manglamber R. DwivediFor Respondent: Shri H.M Bhatt
Section 143(3)

know of the order, dated 03/08/2023, having been passed by the CIT(A) subsequently, and took steps to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. This resulted in delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In response, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Appellant has been ... opportunity to satisfy the CIT(A). In our view that the Appellant has been able to show sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal before the Tribunal in time specified in Section 253(3) of the Act as well as for not entering appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, delay

ITO(E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavitha Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4766/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: 28/05/2024
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

M/S Gujarat Realtores, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

ITA 3525/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 234BSection 36Section 68

additions. M/s Gujarat Realtors 3 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal bu way of raising grounds raising grounds

M/S Gujarat Realtores, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

ITA 3524/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 234BSection 36Section 68

additions. M/s Gujarat Realtors 3 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal bu way of raising grounds raising grounds

M/S. Gujarat Realtors (Firm), Bhayander vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

ITA 3523/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 234BSection 36Section 68

additions. M/s Gujarat Realtors 3 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 3523 to 3525/Mum/2023 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal bu way of raising grounds raising grounds

Gartner Ireland Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax-2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2460/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gartner Ireland Ltd., Dcit-2(3)(2), 3Rd Floor, Two Park Place, 17Th Floor, 1711, Air India Hatch Street, Dublin 2, Vs. Building, Nariman Point, Ireland D02 Np94. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 2919 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Farooq Irani Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 234DSection 9(1)(vi)

India 10% on the gross basis as per Article 12 of the India- Ireland DTAA. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds

Dinesh Gupta, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) Noida, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2554/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Madhav Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The provisions of Section 50C being reproduced

Dilip Kapur, United States of America vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarshri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. and Shri Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234D

Assessing Officer based on the report of the DVO has been affirmed by the Ld. DRP. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the AO failed to take cognizance of valuation report dated 18.03.2020 issued by registered