← 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

Pradeep Kumar Agarwal., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1329/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav

Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 6

this order whereas Registry has been calculating the delay from the date of passing of the order till the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has contended that service of I.T.A. No.: 1329/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Agarwal. notice was not effected upon the assessee

Mgg Infra Projects Private Limited, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 728/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 244ASection 250Section 270A

that since, no cogent and satisfactory explanation had been furnished by the assessee for inordinately long delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and hence, the appeal is deserves to be dismissed on ground of delay. In support, the DR referred to the judgement delivered ... memo and material on record. It is undisputed fact on record that there has been a delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the appellant assessee. The assessee has explained the reason for the delay that- “The order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 03.03.2023 could

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2 2, Bmtc Building Koramangala vs. The Oasis Centre Llc, Dubai Uae

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

ITA 959/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.959/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. M/S. The Oasis Centre Llc, Circle – 2(2), Land Mark Group West Wing Building Bengaluru. No.3, Off Hal Airport Main Road, Yamlur – 560 037, Bangalore. Pan : Aafct 2481 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

itself, hence, cannot be brought to tax as ‘Royalty’. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR had filed a brief synopsis. The synopsis filed by the learned DR is reproduced below: 1. Department has filed Additional

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 878/BANG/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Circle – 1(1), Cr Building, Attavara, Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan : Aabct 5589 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan S & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan S and Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(3)Section 250

identical and similar issue in appellant's own case.” 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR fairly submitted that in order to keep the issue alive, the appeal has been filed. The learned

Jabil Circuit India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.349/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jabil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 103 Road No. 12, Opp Tulip Telecom Marol Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. बनाम / Vs. Pcit-03, Mumbai Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7114K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Revenue By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Shri Ankush Kapoor (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 18.01.2021 For

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 263(1)

revenue expenses relatable to the Chennai unit see pages 221 and 222 of the Factual PB). Against this, the Assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal which came to be disposed of on 19.11.2018. Hence, clause (c) of Explanation 1 below section 263(1) of the Act would ... depreciation relating to the said unit, which is also a disallowance in view of discontinued business, would constitute a subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal acting as a bar on the PCIT in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In this regard, orders/ judgments referred

Fashion Design Council of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle (Exemp) 1(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

ITA 2786/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediafashion Design Council Of Vs. Acit India Circle (Exemp) 1(1) 209, Near Modi Flour Mill, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, New Delhi-110 020

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 44A

aforesaid order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) however, declined any relief. 6. Further, aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the assessee adverted the audited financials statement and pointed out that in the ‘Notes Forming

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Continental Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1538/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

thus reversed the additions made by AO. 5. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and submitted that it was incumbent upon the assessee to corroborate the intrinsic value of equity

ACIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi vs. Dhruv Milkose Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8431/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Chakrapani, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

treated as allowed. 7. As a result, the appeal is allowed.” 5. Aggrieved by the reversal of addition, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the action of the AO and submitted that by no stretch of imagination such huge

Vishwas Shukla, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Midvalley Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 656/AHD/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Midvalley Healthcare Services The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, New York Tower, Central Circle-2(3), S.G Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat Pan : Aaecm 7777 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.06.2023 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised In This Appeal Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.4,30,72,029/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, By Not Appreciating That The Department Is Presently In Appeal Before The High Court Of Gujarat Against The Order Passed By Hon’Ble Itat Deleting The Quantum Addition.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

impugned penalty order was cancelled by him vide order dated 12.06.2023. The Revenue, being aggrieved, is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing before us, we observe that, in the quantum appeal, the Tribunal has deleted the quantum addition vide order dated 3 DCIT

Vidyasagar Teacher Training College., Burdwan vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Burdwan.

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 830/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Vidyasagar Teacher Training Income Tax Officer, Ward- College, 4(3), Burdwan Bhabanandapur, Vs. Godaannadakalna, Panchrakhi, Burdwan, West Bengal-713122. (Pan: Aaalv0338G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

appellate order has been passed by the ld. CIT(A). Owing to these facts and circumstances a delay occurred in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal which is also the reason for not appearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering these facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate

Turner Morrison Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 530/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)

275/29/2014-IT(B) dated 11.03.2016 in this issue. Ground No. 14 raised by the appellant is thus partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts narrated above. Ld. Counsel referred to the CBDT Office 4 Turner Morrison

Royal Calcutta Turf Club., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-22, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1333/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Royal Calcutta Turf Club Acit, Circle-22, Kolkata. C/O M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Vs. Co., 7, C. R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-700072. (Pan:Aaaar0769A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia & Shri Sujay Sen, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

then, confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that out of the four notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) for fixing the hearing

Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1323/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

income tax return and tax audit report filed by the assessee. He thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The moot point raised before us is whether adjustment can be made by CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act while

Abhishek Shaw, North 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1039/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144

that assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal and thus disposed this off as dismissed for non-prosecution. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Abhishek Shaw, AY 2017-18 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that non- compliance occurred because assessee

Mani Sundaram, Devakottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 899/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.899/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mani Sundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 52, Thiyagigal Road, Ward-1, Karaikudi. Devakottai, Tamil Nadu 630 302. [Pan:Cwops9124D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 21.06.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Surabi Pvc Pipes & Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 20.01.2018 Declaring Taxable Income Of ₹.3,03,720/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the assessee 3 I.T.A. No.899/Chny/23 has initially availed loans from close relatives, which ... assessee before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which allowed the assessee's appeal and while doing so, the Tribunal followed the decisions (i) of the Tribunal in the case of M.Raju

P. Krishnamurthy, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Villupuram

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

ITA 773/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 249(2)(b)Section 264Section 69

assessee already availed the remedy u/s 264, the present appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before me, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case ... relation to appeals before Commissioners (Appeals). Section 253 - Appeals against orders passed by Commissioners (Appeals) to lie to the Appellate Tribunal, and departmental appeals to the Tribunal against such orders to be authorised by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Section 264 - Commissioners of Income-tax not to revise any order

Cholan Paper and Board Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-1 Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 679/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.679/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Cholan Paper & Board Private Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Limited,No. 1, Bukkathurai, Nh 45, Income Tax, Chennai-1, Bukkuathurai, Kancheepuram District, Chennai. Tamil Nadu 603 308. [Pan:Aaacc1363M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L. Natarajan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-1, Chennai, Dated 28.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(7)

pass fresh assessment order by granting opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that against the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, all the questions raised

S.K. V Eductional Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1375/CHNY/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1375/Chny/2023 S.K.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21A, Nambikkai Arudhra Street, Exemptions Ward-3, T S Krishna Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai. Chennai 600 037. [Pan:Aazts7120G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 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 (Exemptions), Chennai, Dated 24.11.2022. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 309 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Detailed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

response from the assessee, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing copies of various documents including trust deed, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that no notice has been served

Nammalvar Lingusamy, Valsaravakkam vs. CIT [Appeals]-14, Chennai

ITA 532/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.532/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nammalvar Lingusamy, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of 9, Janaki Nagar, Solai Krishnan Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Range 20, Chennai. [Pan:Acbpn0214G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J.K. Reddy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the consideration clause of the deed of sale had wrongly entered the transaction

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

assessment year 2010 finding in assessment year 2010-11. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Tribunal by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. of raising the grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard