← 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

Prity Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Iti, Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

unexplained money. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition so made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts noted above. He also referred to the paper book containing 185 pages placed

A.Raghuram, Valsarawakkam vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 373/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 A. Raghuram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 20, 3/1A, West Kamakoti Nagar, Income Tax, Agastyar Street, Valasarawakkam, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpa2155P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, Dated 08.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Initiated & Conducted In This Assessee’S Case On 31.10.2013. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 16.04.2015, Admitting Total Income Of ₹.2,03,67,310/-. The Case Was 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cost of production. Therefore, there is no merit in alternative plea and hence, is rejected. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing detailed written submissions, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the difference reckoned by the Assessing Officer between

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Rajapalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 1197/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 54/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1197/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Income Tax, 7/84, Pound Street, Chokkanathaputhur, Central Circle 2, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 626 121. [Pan:Aaxpk1318E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkataraman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.11.2017 Admitting A Total

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 68

unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act relevant to the A. Y. 2018-19. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of Appeal for the assessment year 2017-18: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Ms Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA
Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

that, the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case is received on 21.03.2023 and last date for filing of further appeal before the Tribunal was on or before 20.05.2023. The appellant has filed appeal on 03.10.2023 with a delay of 136 days and reasons of such delay

Devraj Computers Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, It(OSD), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3274/CHNY/2018[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Devraj Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 42, Gee Gee Complex, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Range – 1, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcd1593P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 27.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Both The Assessment Years: Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Range-1, Chennai 34 Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 Made Arbitrary Additions Without The Right Application Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

total loan of Rs.4.14 crores to related parties. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that based on the cash flow statement, the ld. CIT(A) has erroneously held that

Devraj Computers Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, It(OSD), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3273/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Devraj Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 42, Gee Gee Complex, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Range – 1, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcd1593P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 27.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Both The Assessment Years: Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Range-1, Chennai 34 Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 Made Arbitrary Additions Without The Right Application Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

total loan of Rs.4.14 crores to related parties. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that based on the cash flow statement, the ld. CIT(A) has erroneously held that

Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exem Ward 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3660/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

expiry of the aforesaid time, the CIT(A) passed order dated 21/08/2023 dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal 5. on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 4 When appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf

Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranit TannaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 250

further appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 21/02/2003 allowed partial relief to the assessee of Rs.5,81,900. In an appeal before the Tribunal, the coordinate bench vide order dated 31/07/2006 restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh ... second round of proceedings, the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 29/02/2012 dismissed the appeal for non-attendance of the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal, the coordinate bench on assessee‟s plea that given an opportunity, the assessee would be able to compile all the details and produce

Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 486/MUM/2020[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranit TannaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 250

further appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 21/02/2003 allowed partial relief to the assessee of Rs.5,81,900. In an appeal before the Tribunal, the coordinate bench vide order dated 31/07/2006 restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh ... second round of proceedings, the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 29/02/2012 dismissed the appeal for non-attendance of the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal, the coordinate bench on assessee‟s plea that given an opportunity, the assessee would be able to compile all the details and produce

Candid Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 86/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.82 & 86/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Candid Industries Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aaace4493Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

view of the above and aggrieved by the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. Page 4 of 8 ITA No 82 and 86 of 2024 Candid Industries Ltd 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee ... appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned AR drew our attention to Para 14 of the order of learned CIT (A) NFAC which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 8 ITA No 82 and 86 of 2024 Candid Industries Ltd 5. At the outset, the learned AR submitted

Candid Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 82/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.82 & 86/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Candid Industries Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aaace4493Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

view of the above and aggrieved by the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. Page 4 of 8 ITA No 82 and 86 of 2024 Candid Industries Ltd 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee ... appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned AR drew our attention to Para 14 of the order of learned CIT (A) NFAC which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 8 ITA No 82 and 86 of 2024 Candid Industries Ltd 5. At the outset, the learned AR submitted

Prathishta Business Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 21/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.21 & S.A. No.6/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Prathishta Business Vs. Income Tax Officer Solutions (P) Ltd Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aahcp2943F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Prathishta Business Solutions P Ltd 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1) The order passed u/s 250 by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent

Krishna Murthy Vuppala, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 187/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-

For Appellant: Adv. Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: : Smt.Harshita Chouhan, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

accordingly upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of provision store and was following the provisions

Prasanthi Macha, Warangal vs. ACIT., Circle -7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 181/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.181/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt.Prasanthi Macha Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Warangal Circle 7(1) Pan:Aiopm2800L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Vamseedhar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Harshita Chouhan,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vamseedhar, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Harshita Chouhan,DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

Accordingly, all grounds of the appeal are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has accepted old demonetization notes on account of pharmacy sales, lab collection

Margani Govinda Raju, Kadiyapulanka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.251/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Margani Govinda Raju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kadiyapulanka, Ward-2(3), East Godavari Dist. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aocpm 3465 K (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 : 18/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 20/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drawn my attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with petition seeking ... appeal beyond the prescribed limit with a delay of 72 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

Prabhat Alloi Foundation, Purulia vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 532/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Date of pronouncing the order : March 20, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata dated 09.02.2024 vide which Registration under section

Loyola High School, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Date of pronouncing the order : March 20, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National 1 Loyola High School Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.05.2022 passed

M/S. Sivasakthi Tyres, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tuticorin

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

ITA 586/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Sivasakthi Tyres, The Income Tax Officer, 184/9B, Vvd Road, Vs. Ward -4, Tuticorin – 628 008. Tuticorin. Pan: Abkfs 7778L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V.J. Arul Raj & Shri P. Sivagaminathan, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1050727795(1) Dated 14.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tuticorin For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making Disallowance Of Payments Made By Way Of Cash For Purchase In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- & Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised 17 Grounds, Which Are Argumentation, Factual & Citation Of Various Case Laws & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri V.J. Arul Raj &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

amounting to Rs.14,68,005/- is sustained. All the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee made

East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Central Circle- 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 236/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

basis of computation, the assessee cannot claim set-off of brought forward losses, he confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the grounds raised

East Coast Consturctions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Cnetral Cricle- 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 235/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

basis of computation, the assessee cannot claim set-off of brought forward losses, he confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the grounds raised