← 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

Rajendra Kumar Mishra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-47, Kolkata

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

ITA 1340/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 68

case of Kirat Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1628/Del/2018 dated 22.06.2023, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 Rajendra Kumar Mishra, AY 2014-15 5. The moot point asserted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that

Shusheel Kumar Agarwal., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-36, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1175/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

balance was also not satisfactorily explained and, therefore, AO had rightfully added the income u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts already narrated above. At the outset, we note that the impugned assessment

Srinivasa Rao Inuganti, Mylavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 28/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Inuganti Vs. Income Tax Officer Sy.No.537/5, S.V.S.Nager Ward-3(1) Mylavaram Vijayawada Ntr District [Pan : Abdpi5709C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 57Section 69A

assessee ex-parte due to non prosecution of the appeal. 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. In the facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have considered

Mallela Rajesh Naidu, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

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

ITA 99/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.99/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Mallela Rajesh Naidu Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.22-115, M.M.Street Income Tax Chilakaluripet Central Circle-1 [Pan : Amjpm9124C] Guntur (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

submitted necessary evidence before the Ld.CIT(A). 3 I.T.A. No.99/Viz/2023, A.Y.2020-21 Mallela Rajesh Naidu, Chilakaluripet 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order

Ganta Venkata Nanda Kishore, Tanuku vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

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

ITA 274/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.274/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Venkata Nanda Kishore Ganta Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.5-1, Near Satram Ward-1 Pydiparru Post Tanuku Tanuku, West Godavari [Pan : Anbpg4942R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

account. 4 I.T.A. No.274/Viz/2023, A.Y.2013-14 Ganta Venkata Nanda Kishore, Tanuku 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

Thota Venkateswara Rao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Thota Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.67-21-12/4 Ward-1 Lb Nagar Ss Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Abipt6770F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 187(3)Section 69A

A.Y.2017-18 after giving due credit of taxes paid in A.Y.2016-17. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Shri Ashok Bhawarlal Jain, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1123/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 153A

given the benefit of telescoping of addition made in the earlier assessment years and current year, against which the department is not in appeal before the Tribunal. However, the benefit of loans borrowed, & IT(SS)A No. 22/PUN/2023 the availability of funds on bidding the bishes (chits) was ignored

Shri Ashok Bhawarlal Jain, Pune vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1122/PUN/2023[A.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 153A

given the benefit of telescoping of addition made in the earlier assessment years and current year, against which the department is not in appeal before the Tribunal. However, the benefit of loans borrowed, & IT(SS)A No. 22/PUN/2023 the availability of funds on bidding the bishes (chits) was ignored

Subhadara Bheemavarapu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 100/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.100/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Subhadra Vs. Income Tax Officer Bheemavarapu Ward 4(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acepb2599R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S.N.S.R. Chinmai राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 11/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act & Confirming The Addition Of Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Advocate S.N.S.R. ChinmaiFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer on wrong appreciation of facts has determined the Long-Term Capital

Annapurna Boddu, West Godavari vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Annapurna Boddu Vs. Assistant. C. I. T. West Godavari Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Ayxpb7323A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

Annapurna Boddu 7. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.24,00,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1841/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

claimed u/s 80G of Rs.1.00 crore and brought to tax.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has not raised any other grounds except the grounds mentioned therein. However, the Tribunal has remanded back the matter

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1840/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

claimed u/s 80G of Rs.1.00 crore and brought to tax.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has not raised any other grounds except the grounds mentioned therein. However, the Tribunal has remanded back the matter

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1839/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

claimed u/s 80G of Rs.1.00 crore and brought to tax.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has not raised any other grounds except the grounds mentioned therein. However, the Tribunal has remanded back the matter

Tikkavarapu Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1838/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

claimed u/s 80G of Rs.1.00 crore and brought to tax.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has not raised any other grounds except the grounds mentioned therein. However, the Tribunal has remanded back the matter

Tikkavarapu Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1836/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1836 To 1838/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Vinayak Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ravi Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abapt1371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1839 To 1841/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Tikkavarapu Venkata Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Ram Reddy Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aawpt6892M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate B Shanti Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By Both Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.09.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Advocate B Shanti KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

claimed u/s 80G of Rs.1.00 crore and brought to tax.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has not raised any other grounds except the grounds mentioned therein. However, the Tribunal has remanded back the matter

Kanjula Rajagopal Reddy Firm, Guntur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.59/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-23) Kanjula Rajagopal Reddy Firm, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Aaefk 4114 B Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 194Q

considering the submissions of the assessee the Ld. Addl. / JCIT (Appals) partly allowed the appeal. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present 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

The Andaluru Large Size Co-Operative Society Anadaluru, Andaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.58/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Andaluru Large Size Co- Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Operative Society Andaluru, Income Tax, D. No. 3-77, Main Road, Circle-1, Andaluru, West Godavari Dist, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 534238. Pan: Aacat 1978 M (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 27/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 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

Sri Venkateswara Bharat Gas Grameena Vitrak, Srikakulam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.56/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Venkateswara Bharat Gas Vs. Income Tax Officer Grameena Vitrak Ward-2 Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Abxfs9737N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

respectively on 03.05.2016 by way of cash also could not be established by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The Ld.Assessing Officer is not justified in taxing an amount of Rs.3

The Anigandlapadu Pacs Ltd, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward(1)1 Vijayawada, Vijayawada

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

ITA 300/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.300/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Anigandlapadu Pacs Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer 10-1, Anigandlapadu Village Ward-1(1) Penuganchiprolu Post Vijayawada Penuganchiprolu Mandal Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aacat7983Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri ASRSS Sivaprasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 56Section 80P

order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 22.08.2023 ought to have been filed before the Tribunal by 21.10.2023, but the assessee could file appeal before the Tribunal on 02.12.2023 with the delay of 42 days. We find there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the assessee to file appeal belatedly ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte since the assessee failed to substantiate it’s claim. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. Both in law and in facts of the case, the order made by the Ld.Commissioner

Chanubanda Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 152/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.152/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) The Chanubanda Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Ward-3(5), Society Limited, Chanubanda Vijayawada. Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh–521214. Pan: Aacat 7978 H (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri ASRSS Siva Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred