← 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

Sayaji Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3403/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 250

from 27/07/2023 to 16/08/2023 for personal reasons and only after his return he appointed the Chartered Accountants for preparation and filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal could not be filed within the limitation period and requested

Rupinder Kaur, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2002/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyarupinder Kaur, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 30, R-675, 1St Floor, New Delhi. New Rajinder Nagar, Central Delhi, New Delhi – 110 060. (Pan : Aaspk0367J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Order : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

statutory time period provided under the Act. 3. Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the records, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. Although assessee has raised various grounds, at the outset, ld. Counsel of the assessee contended that the notice issued under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Grass Valley India Private Limited, Noida

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

ITA 2796/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Misra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. DR for the Revenue pointed out that CIT(A) has decided the issue in haste and in an abrupt manner

Thotla Swami, Mothkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 459/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.459/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Thotla Swami Vs. Income Tax Officer Mothikur Ward-1, Suryapet Pan:Fheps1516R Nalgonda (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.09.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 300 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Same Submitted That The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Has Passed The Order On 28.09.2022 But The Advocate Who Was Engaged To Appear Before The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Did Not Inform The Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, DR
Section 144Section 148

order sustained the addition made by 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 seller had sold the property in question to many other persons even before

Mr. Mohan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 947/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.947/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohan, The Income Tax Officer, No.58, Barakha Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-10(3), Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aaipm-5498-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

assessee. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We heard the representatives of both the parties and decided to remit the matter to the ld. AO for re-examination and decision afresh

Sahana Complex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 4(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3327/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Digambar JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath
Section 250Section 6

therefore he couldn’t file the appeal on or before 06.07.2023. Thus there was a delay of 74 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which is not intentional. Taking into consideration all the facts (supra), we are of the view that the cause for the delay

Power and Energy Consultants India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshpower & Energy Consultants Vs. Ito, India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-19(1), House No. U-136, Vikas Marg, Delhi Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3625J Assessee By : Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca Ms. Neetu Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Harish Chaudhary, CaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90ASection 91

compliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section

Tarigonda Shavathali Khan, Kalakada vs. ITO., Ward No-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 23/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.23/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Tarigonda Shavathali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan, Chittoor Ward 1(1) Pan:Albpt1206F Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

account of delay in filing of the appeal. 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 at the outset submitted that due to the death of the Accountant of the assessee during

Srinivas Cheedara, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 669/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.669/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivas Cheedara Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(4) Pan:Aeapc3856J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Mookambikeyan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 25.10.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac Delhi Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 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 Addition Of Rs.53,41,600/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A R.W.S.115Bbe Of The I.T. Act Being The Cash Deposits In The Bank Account As Unexplained Money.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri S. Mookambikeyan, DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is quite old and is suffering from various ailments for which all these

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Dhobba Madhavi, Hyderabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 614/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.614/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Dhobba Madhavi, Ward 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Cqspm2066A C.O No.1/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.614/Hyd/2023 (A.Y 2017-18) (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Dhobba Madhavi, Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Cqspm2066A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा /Assessee By:: Shri P. Prasad, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Also Filed The Cross Objection Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: : Shri P. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

learned CIT (A) NFAC reads as under: 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising various grounds. The assessee in her cross objection has challenged the estimation of profit @8% of the total credits in the Bank Account

Shri Krishnaraj Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 50

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR श्री संदीDeep गोसाई, न्यायिक

DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Eka Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Building 2A, East Tower, Bengaluru. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarbeesanhalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 575 001. Pan : Aabce 3660 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed of Rs.2,12,32,907/-, Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Learned DR strongly relied on the grounds raised. 7. The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that though the quantum assessment has been

Anjali Puri, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14C(3)Section 192Section 234BSection 270ASection 6(1)Section 9Section 90

after denying the exemption/relief claimed by the assessee under Article 15(1) of India - Ireland DTAA. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Ground No. 2 to 5 relating to salary income earned by the assessee for services rendered in Ireland is not taxable in India

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1970/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

dismissed the three appeals vide his separate order(s) dated 28.02.2023 against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal taking common ground stated earlier. 5. None attended the hearing fixed before the Tribunal on 05.12.2023 for and/or on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR was, however

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1969/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

dismissed the three appeals vide his separate order(s) dated 28.02.2023 against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal taking common ground stated earlier. 5. None attended the hearing fixed before the Tribunal on 05.12.2023 for and/or on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR was, however

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 21(1), Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1968/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

dismissed the three appeals vide his separate order(s) dated 28.02.2023 against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal taking common ground stated earlier. 5. None attended the hearing fixed before the Tribunal on 05.12.2023 for and/or on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR was, however

JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Axis Risk Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2920/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anupama Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 40Section 40a

granted relief and reversed the action of the AO on both counts under challenge. 10. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order. As regards disallowance on account of deduction for ESOPs, the ld. DR submitted that

M/S. City Mail Vikash Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

submission of the party dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR has stated that the revised ground no. 1 taken by the assessee in the memorandum ... appeal before the Tribunal does not want to press. Accordingly, the revised ground termed as dismissed not pressed. The remaining ground no. 1 & 2 are relating to challenging the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A) by which dismissing the appeal of the assessee as infructuous by not considering

Nanjappa Gounder Palanisamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1227/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appeal of the assessee is filed with a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for 2 I.T.A. No. 1227/Chny/23 condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit mentioning the reasons for delay ... dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4 I.T.A. No. 1227/Chny/23 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was unaware of notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) as he lacks knowledge in operating

Vijay Srinivas Bobba, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 833/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Vijay Srinivas Bobba, Vs. Dcit, Flat No.502, Indraprastha Ruhe, Circle – 2(2)(1), Pattandur Agrahara Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aitpb 9536 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

benefit of higher value of cost of acquisition. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed two sets of Paper Books. One set of Paper Book enclosed, the case laws relied. In other set of Paper Book