← 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

Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Sahakari Pat Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 1217/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Pcit-3, Pune Sahakari Pat Maryadit Vs. A/P Manchar, Tal-Ambegaon, Dist. Pune – 410503 Pan: Aaaad5228N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandip Argade Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sandip ArgadeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

r.w.s. section 80P (4) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income

Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Nashik

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

ITA 687/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1, Nashik 3/4, Poush Sector, Lekha Nagar, Vs. Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Aabch4310G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263

after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed a copy of the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer

Balaji Finance, Gawal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

ITA 1375/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

No.1375/Hyd/2025 | 2 At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 89 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative ... submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 07.03.2025, whereas the assessee could file the appeal before this Tribunal only on 28.08.2025, resulting in a delay of 89 days. It was submitted that earlier the assessee had undergone angioplasty and during the relevant period, he suffered

Anil Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

confirmed the action of ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

Satish Kumar Mailik, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 52(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4307/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalsatish Kumar Malik, Income Tax Officer, 2/31, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Ward-52(3), New Delhi-110002. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Adrpm7097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.M. Mehta, Ca & Shri J.P. Chawla, Ca Department By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.05.2025 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-18/10299/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Goods. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 02.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,19,530/- & The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Complete Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposit During The Demonetization”. Thereafter, Notice U/S 143(2) Satish Kumar Malik Vs. Ito Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time, In Response To Which Assessee Filed Written Submissions. After Considering The Submissions Filed By The Assessee The Ao Was Of The Opinion That Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.44,44,750/- In Bank During Demonetization Period In Sbn Source Of Which Was Not Explained And, Therefore, Made The Addition Of The Said Cash As Unexplained Credits U/S 68 Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act & Charge Tax At The Higher Rate.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

same is claimed as generated out of sales by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assesse is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Assessing Officer erred both in law and on facts in making an addition

Divya Panwar, Shamli vs. DCIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4287/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 07.05.2025, dismissed the

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292CSection 69B

assessee and confirmed the order passed u/s 69B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Horizon Hge Electronic Equipment India Pvt Ltd, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2695/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Horizon Hge Electronicequipment Vs Dcit India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Awho, Circle-10(1) Sector-29, Noida Sector-37, S.O- New Delhi Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201303. Pan-Aacch0704R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. & Shri A.T.Panda, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Kolkata [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Addl/Jcit(A)-5 Kolkata/10001/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Intimation Order Dated 18.12.2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company, Derived Income From Business & Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.10.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 2,42,00,780/- & Paid Taxes In Terms Of The Concessional Rate Of Tax Provide U/S 115Baa Which Was Denied By Cpc In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act For The Reason That Form 10-Ic Was Filed Delayed.

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250

115BBE was not allowed as the Form 10IC was filed delayed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Addl/JCIT (A) erred on facts

Horizon Buildmart Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Faridabad

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

ITA 1250/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalhorizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, C-131, Ground Floor, Block-C, Central Circle-Ii, Sushant Shopping Arcade, Vs. Faridabad, Sushant Lok-1, Haryana-121001. Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aacch4582P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Assessee By Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.01.2025 In Appeal No.10581/Cit(A) Ggn-3/2018-19 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.54,833/-. The Ao Had Information That Assessee Received Loan Horizon Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition

Delite Infrastructure Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 954/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

order dated 19.01.2024 has confirmed the additions and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated

Renew Surya Vihaan Private Ltd, Delhi vs. CIT, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5360/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

vide order dated 26.09.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. | Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT{A) erred in upholding

Noida Towers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

ITA 4199/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

section 115BBA of the Act which was not accepted by the lower authorities. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: "1 Ground No. 1: Impugned order is non-est and barred by limitation as per section

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dev Rubber Factory Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3478/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit Vs Dev Rubber Factory Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1) 15A/13, Upper Ground Floor, Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aafcm1581L Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv. Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit (A), Delhi- 3/10359/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Tubes For Automobile Tyres & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Income At Inr 77,50,730/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 10.08.2018. Thereafter Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On Various Dates From Time To Time & In Response, The Assessee Has Submitted Its Replies. After Considering The Submissions Filed, Assessment Order Was Passed At An Income Of Inr 3,95,31,243/- Vide Order Dated 22.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Following Additions:- (I) Bogus Share Capital U/S 68 Inr 53,50,000/- (Ii) Addition On Account Of Rate & Taxes Inr 9,56,145/- (Iii) Addition Of Bogus Freight & Forwarding Expenses & Business Expenses Inr 59,25,588/- (Iv) Addition Of Vehicle Maintenance Expenses & Business Expenses Inr 81,89,820/-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

impugned order dated 30.05.2024, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Shri Harish Bahl, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2802/DEL/2024[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year :2008] Dcit Vs Shri Harish Bahl Circle-22(2) D-119, Lajpat Nagar-1 New Delhi-110024. Delhi Pan-Aahpb3859K Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Nikhil Rungta Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

vide order dated 01.06.2023, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

this issue cannot be adjudicated. Hence this ground is dismissed as not adjudicated." 4. Against the above order, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR reiterated its submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the orders

Zia Rathi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-44(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmrs. Zia Rathi, Income Tax Officer, 274, Dda Flats, Sector-1A, Ward-44(3), Dwarka Nasirpur, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Bsvpr9218M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.02.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 15/11146/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Sole Proprietor Of M/S Veezee Traders Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Pvc Coated Imported Fabric. The Zia Rathi Vs. Ito

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

towards the cash deposits of Rs. 2,23,46,000/- on substantive bases. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by following grounds of appeal: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Index Securities & Research Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 2181/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

filed by the concerned entity, deleted the addition. 17. The Revenue being aggrieved with the decision of learned first appellate authority preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. While deciding the appeal, the Tribunal in order dated 26.08.2016 passed in ITA 12 ITA No. 2181/Del/2022 No. 430 to 432/Del/2014 upheld ... share premium as bogus. While deciding the appeals of the assessee, learne first appellate authority deleted the additions. Being aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. While deciding the appeals of the Revenue, the Tribunal in ITA No.6569/Del/2013 and Ors., date 28.09.2016 examined the issue in great detail

Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur vs. Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort Road

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

allowed and the AO is directed to treat the interest earned on fixed deposits as business income.” 6. Now, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and all the three grounds relates one single issue as to whether the income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ferozepur vs. Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort Road

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

allowed and the AO is directed to treat the interest earned on fixed deposits as business income.” 6. Now, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and all the three grounds relates one single issue as to whether the income

Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 477/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.477/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Navyug Nirman Shaikshanik Sansthan. …………………....Appellant Guru Kripa, Shiv Raj Yadav Path, Mohanpur, Punaichak, Po- L B S Nagar, Patna, Bihar- 800023. [Pan: Aaefn5170A] Vs. Dcit, Cc-1, Patna………….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Kr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Firm & Had Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19. An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.1,10,77,405/- In The Bank Account During The Relevant Assessment Year. As There Was Reason To Believe That The Amount Of Rs. 1,10,77,405/- Was Escaped Assessment, The Case Of The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4. Not satisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be set aside and the ld. AR prayed

Johar Gadly Alias Zohar Mohammad Bhai Through Legal Heir Rashida Gadly, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Patna

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

ITA 295/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.295/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Johar Gadly Alias Zohar Mohammad Bhai ……………....Appellant Shop No.5, Aditya Arcade, Exhibition Road, Patna, Bihar- 800001. [Pan: Abopb7542H] Vs. Acit, Cc-2, Patna………….…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Hiresh Karan, Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manab Advak, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹2,94,100. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) By Determining Total Income At Rs.8,63,000/- After Making Addition Of Rs.11,57,190/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

dismissed for non- prosecution, as the assessee failed to appear or effectively represent its case. 4. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 79 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering