← 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

Income Tax Officer, Nahan vs. Ram Swroop, Sangrah

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted

Income Tax Officer, Nahan vs. Ram Swroop, Sangrah

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1215/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted

Samudra Commotrade (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O, NFAC, New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1057/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2009-10 dated 07.08.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the additional ground raised before him challenging ... result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Before us, a paper book running into 670 pages

Mange Ram, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mange Ram, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income H. No. 261, Main Pataudi Tax, Faridabad, Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Village Garoli Khurd, P.O.- Basai, Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Amwpr7462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nian, Adv., Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Faridabad’S Order Dated 04.12.2023 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1058449758(1), Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Herd Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Jagdish Kumar Mahto, Ranchi vs. Ranchi Commissioner, Ranchi

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

ITA 50/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.50/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jagdish Kumar Mahto….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Mukhiya House, Kanke Road Ranchi, Konge, Kanke Road, S.O Jharkhand-834008. [Pan: Acnpm5004H] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi...................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.1.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to respond during the appellate proceedings. 4. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. However, despite issuance of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. We, therefore, in the interest of justice

Kameshwar Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Appeals) sustained the addition of ₹2,00,00,000. 4. Dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of the hearing the Ld. AR stated that impugned order passed

Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Ranchi vs. Dukhharan Memorial Charitable Trust, Ranchi

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

ITA 261/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.261/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant Vs. Dudhharan Memorial Charitable Trust.…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Rani Hospital Behind Machlighar Booty Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834001. [Pan: Aactd1772A] Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 20.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 250

hereby deleted and the appellant’s appeal is allowed.” I.T.A. No.261/Ran/2024 Dudhharan Memorial Charitable Trust 4. The Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law. The Ld. DR submitted that the payments made by the trust exceeded

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Nice Exports Private Limited, A-15A, Phase-VII, Focal Point, Ludhiana

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 730/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Nitin Mahajan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 68

genuine for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Nice Exports Private Limited, A-15A, Phase-VII, Focal Point, Ludhiana

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Nitin Mahajan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 68

genuine for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Nice Exports Private Limited, A-15 A Phase, Focal Point, Ludhiana

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 728/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Nitin Mahajan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 68

genuine for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

Sael Limited, Faridkot Road Guruharsahai vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 704/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

prosecution as well as on merits on the basis of material available on record. 5. Feeling aggrieved the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the additions sustained by the learned CIT(A) were not independent additions on merits but were made ... substantive additions on the same issues were made in the hands of M/s Gobind Dham Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., which were carried in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 281/Asr/2023. The Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench, vide order dated 04.01.2024, has deleted the substantive additions. It was contended that

Rajiv Goyal, Patiala, Punjab vs. Jao ITO Ward-3, Patiala

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

ITA 481/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A) have not been considered properly.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 115BSection 68Section 69

inconsistent with the legal provisions u/s 69 of the Act. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the assessee has filed the 'paper book', consisting of 1 to 112 pages, wherein, he has filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Frontier Agrotech Private Limited, Chandigarh

ITA 388/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: The Appeal Is Heard Or Is Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144B

Assessing Officer, allowing the appeal in favour of the assessee. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the revenue preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently supported the assessment order and submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claims

Smt. Raj Bala, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1142/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing athe learned AR submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is wholly erroneous and unsustainable, as it proceeds

Kishor Vitthal Kolhe, Jalgaon vs. DCIT-Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1876/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kawadia (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Officer by observing as under: 5 6 7 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is maintaining day-to-day stock records and cash books which

Forum for Indian Neurology Education ( Fine ), Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1772/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraforum For Indian Neurology Education (Fine) Cit(Exemption), Apt No.1 & 2, 1St Floor, Fortune Apartment, Pune Vs. H.No.1206A/13, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005 Pan: Aaatf5430D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas P Bora & Sampada Ingale, Ca Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Sampada Ingale, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to page 72 of the paper book submitted that the assessee filed an adjournment letter

DCIT CC1 4 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Ankit Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2581/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2581/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-2023) Dcit Cc-1(4) Kolkata Vs Ankit Agarwal, 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, New Allipore-700053 Kolkata Pan No. :Aqepa 0158 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20 For The Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 08 Days. The Department Has Filed Condonation Petition Along With Affidavit Stating The Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which In My Opinion, Are Reasonable. Accordingly, I Condone The Delay & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted Vide The Cbdt Circular No. 9/2024 Dated 17.09.2024, The Monetary Limits For Filing Of Appeal By The Department Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & High Courts & Slp Before Supreme Court Have Been Increased As A Measure For Reducing Litigation. The Revised Monetary Limits Laid Down In Para-2 Of This Circular Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Deep Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

delayed by 08 days. The department has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating the sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which in my opinion, are reasonable. Accordingly, I condone the delay and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset

DCIT CC1 4 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Dinesh Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2580/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2580/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-2023) Dcit Cc-1(4) Kolkata Vs Dinesh Agarwal, 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, New Allipore-700053 Kolkata Pan No. :Adkpa 6950 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 08 Days. The Department Has Filed Condonation Petition Along With Affidavit Stating The Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which In My Opinion, Are Reasonable. Accordingly, I Condone The Delay & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted Vide The Cbdt Circular No. 9/2024 Dated 17.09.2024, The Monetary Limits For Filing Of Appeal By The Department Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & High Courts & Slp Before Supreme Court Have Been Increased As A Measure For Reducing Litigation. The Revised Monetary Limits Laid Down In Para-2 Of This Circular Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Deep Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

delayed by 08 days. The department has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating the sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which in my opinion, are reasonable. Accordingly, I condone the delay and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset

Mallik Sakila, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2532/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2532/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mallik Sakila………………….…………………....…………………....Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 29D, Bentick Street, Unit-A,B & C, 3Rd Floor, Kol-1. [Pan: Hdops3871K] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Avijit Dey, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit - Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026

Section 143(2)Section 250

file written submission despite serving various notices. 4. Dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by submitting that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the submissions made by the assessee and simply upheld the order

Bengani Exports India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2378/KOL/2025[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nabin Dugar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

effect to by the AO. It was the submission that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) which is subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal may be set aside and the AO may be directed to grant effect to the order of the order of Ld.CIT