“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ssnr Projects Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 29/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (Cross Objector / Respondent In (Appellant In Appeal) Appeal) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Samuel Nagadesi ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 28/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Samuel NagadesiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

mentioned in paras 6.2 and 6.3 of his order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

The Konayapalem Pacs Ltd., Chandarlapadu Mandal vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 126/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.126/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Konayapalem Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Ward-(3), Society Limited, Konayapalem Vijayawada. Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh – 521182. Pan: Aacat 6987 G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri ASRSS Siva Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 97 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 ... beyond the prescribed limit with a delay of 97 3 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 97 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

Kanasapalli Pacs Ltd, Kanasapalli vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 125/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.125/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kanasanapalli Pacs Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kanasanapalli Post, Ward-3(4), Agiripalli Mandal, Vijayawada. Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521212. Pan: Aabak 4998 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Asrss Siva Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri ASRSS Siva Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance of deduction made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Arrdy Enginnering Innovations (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/VIZ/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

judicial pronouncements, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam erred in confirming the order

Arrdy Engineering Innovatins (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/VIZ/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

Mayank Bansal, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1016/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 80G

appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds of appeal. However, the main grievance of the assessee is in relation with confirming the action

Prakash Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 12(2), Mumbai

ITA 3145/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

rate of 20% adopted by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2011-12 in appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order, dated 16/05/2012, passed in ITA No. 7213/Mum/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08, the Tribunal remanded the issue of determination of gross ... partly allowed.” Not being satisfied by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the 16. Appellant carried the issues in appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 1 and 2 Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the Appellant pertain to estimation of 17. gross profits. While deciding the identical issue

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 196/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: him.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

effect giving order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 passed by the Act on 04/11/2016, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 5. record. It is the case of the Appellant that

Vishwanathan Medical Foundation, Block L Hauz Khas Enclave vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Civic Centre, Minto Road

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

ITA 3287/DEL/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: Na Vishwanathan Medical Vs. Commissioner Of Foundation, Income Tax Block L, (Exemption), Hauz Khas Enclave, Civic Centre, New Delhi-110016. Minto Road, Pan Aabav2555R New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prince Chugh,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

Page 2 of 4 ITA No.- 3287/Del/2023 Vishwanathan Medical Foundation 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the records. It is evident from ground No. 2 of the assessee and the submission

ITO, Ward-35(7), New Delhi vs. Sumitra Devi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 906/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11 & Co. No. 173/Del/2022 Asstt. Year 2010-11 Ito, Ward-35(7), Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi, New Delhi. Plot No. 132/133, First Floor, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110 085. Pan Craps6145R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(1)Section 45(5)(b)

deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 3,21,75,000/- made by the Ld. AO, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and aggrieved by the aforementioned dismissal of assessee’s grounds by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before the Tribunal

At Kearney Ltd.- India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 960/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 27l

balance amount of Rs.2,66,25,507/- was deleted. We find against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide ITA.Nos.7722 & 7723/Del./2017, Order Dated 25.02.2020, for the A.Ys. 2009-2010 and 20102011, deleted the addition sustained

At Kearney Ltd.- India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 959/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 27l

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. A.T. Kearney Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the Assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 1306/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 27l

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. A.T. Kearney Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the Assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 1305/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 27l

Income Tax Office, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad vs. Venigandla Krishna, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 45/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer, Venigandla Krishna, Ward-12(1), Vs. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Bgkpv3694J] अपीलधर्थी/Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी/Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2024 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 27/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M: Challenging The Order Dated 20-12-2023 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(Appeals)-6, Mumbai, Revenue Preferred This Appeal For The Ay. 2021-22. 2. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Having Income From India & Abroad. He Has Filed The Income Tax Returns By Declaring Income From All Sources. Assessee Filed Form 67 After The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return & Claimed The Relief Under Section 90/9A Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Amounting To Rs. 59,07,195/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Assessing Officer Disallowed The Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc) Claimed By The Assessee & Finalized The Assessment. Aggrieved By Such A Finding Of The Assessing Officer, Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Cit(A). 3. Learned Addl/Jcit(A) After Considering The Facts Of The Case, Allowed The Appeal Of Assessee, Directing The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer To Allow The Ftc As Per Form 67 Filed By The Assessee & Claimed In His Itr For The Said Year, By Stating As Under:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 139Section 90

claimed in his ITR for the said year.” 4. Challenging the said decision of the learned Addl/JCIT(A), Revenue is in this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, learned DR argued that Addl/JCIT(A) erred to observe that the assessee has not complied with the basic conditions

Nagubabu Kuchibhotla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 28/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.28/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Nagubabu Vs. Income Tax Officer Kuchibhotla Ward-12(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ahlpk3559L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. P Prabhakara Murthy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)Nfac In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.4,40,939/- Being Foreign Tax Credit Claimed By The Assessee By Way Of Tax Relief U/S 90 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Adv. P Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

other decisions dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to page 154 to 160 of the paper book drew the attention of the Bench

Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.656 & 657/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Hemu Chandhar Vs. Income Tax Officer Chelupuru, Khammam Ward-1 Pan:Afmpc2764A Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by filing two appeals i.e. one for the quantum addition and the other for the penalty levied

Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 656/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Sarwar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 493/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.493/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Sarwar Ahuja Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-6(1) Pan:Ahkpa9724E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2/8/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. This Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing On 21/11/2023. However, Due To Non-Appearance By Anyone On The Date Of Hearing, The Case Was Adjourned To 15.2.2024 & Notice Was Issued Through Rpad Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee & The Acknowledgment Placed On Record. However, On 15.2.2024 When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called There Was Neither Anyone Present For The Assessee Nor Any Application

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

determine the taxable income accordingly. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the learned DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has purchased the property along with his wife

Sumantha Pathina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Kondlahalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Chitradurga

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

ITA 158/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sumantha Pathina Souharda Vs. Ito, Sahakari Niyamita, Medehalli. Sahakari Niyamitha R, Kondlahalli, Molakalmuru, Chitradurga – 577 529, Karnataka. Pan : Aajas 7472 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suhas K, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Suhas K, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 16.12.2023. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax authorities. 6. The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders