← 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

Sanjay Baban Vaity, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3399/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

evidence on record. parte after analysis of evidence on record. parte after analysis of evidence on record. 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The appeal of the assessee

Mukta Ganpat Karnale, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2812/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2812/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mukta Ganpat Karnale A-701, Deepjyot Chs Ltd., Opp. Orbit Tower, S.L. Matkar Marg, Elphiston Road, Mumbai- 400025 Pan: Ajlpk3849B Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By Revenue/Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Respondent) Mr. Mahendra Pasthe, Ca Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr 25.01.2024 02.02.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals, / National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short 'The Cit(A)'] Dated 20.06.2023 For

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270Section 46ASection 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM Ι

Mira Mahal Premises Management Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)- 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 7158/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Gala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

action is to be upheld. The assessee's grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed” 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authority. The ld. AR submitted that the main reason for making the addition under section

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

addition u/s. 14A of Rs.22,91,614 determining assessed income at Rs.78,08,57,463. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. AR has filed written submissions as under:- “1. At the hearing held on 11th of September 2023, we had submitted, along with

Bhogilal Bahilalbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT -1, Vadoadar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 231/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 475/2 Sagar Faliya Vadodara. At & Post Bhayali Vadodara 391 410. Pan : Bkkpp 3136 R

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 54B

time barred by 525 days, and an application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the reasons for the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Briefly put, main reason 2 given by the assessee was that the appeal could not be filed in time by the assessee before ... delay, and accordingly the appeal of the assessee requires to be admitted for adjudication on merit. We condone the impugned delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit. 5. The assessee has challenged order raising the following grounds before

Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Co.(Merged With Madhav Infra Project Ltd), Vadodara vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Vs. (Merged With Madhav Infra Acit, Projects Ltd), Circle-4, 4, Madhav House, Near Baroda Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 09.08.2012 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts To Hold That No Appeal Lies Against Order Giving Effect To Findings Of Cit In Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Dismissing Appeal Challenging Addition Of Rs.9,90,00,052/- Whereas Supreme Court Awarding Rs. 26.34 Lakhs

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

filed u/s 155(16) of the Act. She contended that there was no reasonable explanation for waiting for 7 years in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. She also pointed out that even otherwise there is no merit in the assessee’s appeal since the ld. CIT(A) has rightly ... asked to furnish copy of the Tribunal Award. Further, since the assessee had pleaded that the Government of Rajasthan had gone in appeal against the Tribunal Award, the assessee was also asked to furnish the copy of affidavit and application filed in appeal by the Rajasthan Govt. Since the assessee

Kodandaram Nadavati, Nellore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nellore

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

ITA 637/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.637/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Shri Kodandaram Nadavati Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Nellore Circle 1 Pan:Afupn9767N Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 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 Confirming The Addition Of Rs.63,48,500/-To The Total Income Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay Of 138 Days In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

dismissed the appeal by observing as under: 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC submitted that

Vishnu Kumar Katturi, Adilabad vs. I.T.O Ward-1, Nirmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/HYD/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.628/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Vishnu Kumar Katuri Vs. Income Tax Officer Adilabad Ward (1) Pan:Agbpk5643G Nirmal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

NFAC upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 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 in the present case, as per the assessment order, notices

Syed Zeeshanuddin, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 355/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.355/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Syed Zeeshanuddin Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Bqgps0128A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Validity Of Assessment U/S 153A In Absence Of Any Incriminating Material & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.12,02,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Expenditure By Applying The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Syed Zeeshanuddin 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the assessment order submitted that the assessee filed his original return of income on 29.03.2016 which was processed

Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 745/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.745/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Alakananda Hydro Power Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Company, Circle 1(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafac2081B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H. Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-

For Appellant: Advocate H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(2)

Alakananda Hydro Power Company 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 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad dated 28-02-2019 is erroneous, contrary to law and facts

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 80/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

effect Ground No.3 is dismissed”. 18. Feeling aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. It was pointed out by the learned AR that the entire amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- as taken by the Assessing Officer ... respectively and against that the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. The learned AR referring to the additional ground submitted that for the A.Y 2010-11, the assessee has admitted the amount of Rs.11.21 crores and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

effect Ground No.3 is dismissed”. 18. Feeling aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. It was pointed out by the learned AR that the entire amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- as taken by the Assessing Officer ... respectively and against that the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. The learned AR referring to the additional ground submitted that for the A.Y 2010-11, the assessee has admitted the amount of Rs.11.21 crores and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 78/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

effect Ground No.3 is dismissed”. 18. Feeling aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. It was pointed out by the learned AR that the entire amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- as taken by the Assessing Officer ... respectively and against that the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. The learned AR referring to the additional ground submitted that for the A.Y 2010-11, the assessee has admitted the amount of Rs.11.21 crores and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 77/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

effect Ground No.3 is dismissed”. 18. Feeling aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. It was pointed out by the learned AR that the entire amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- as taken by the Assessing Officer ... respectively and against that the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. The learned AR referring to the additional ground submitted that for the A.Y 2010-11, the assessee has admitted the amount of Rs.11.21 crores and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 75/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

effect Ground No.3 is dismissed”. 18. Feeling aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. It was pointed out by the learned AR that the entire amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- as taken by the Assessing Officer ... respectively and against that the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. The learned AR referring to the additional ground submitted that for the A.Y 2010-11, the assessee has admitted the amount of Rs.11.21 crores and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 74/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

effect Ground No.3 is dismissed”. 18. Feeling aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. It was pointed out by the learned AR that the entire amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- as taken by the Assessing Officer ... respectively and against that the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. The learned AR referring to the additional ground submitted that for the A.Y 2010-11, the assessee has admitted the amount of Rs.11.21 crores and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 73/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

effect Ground No.3 is dismissed”. 18. Feeling aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. It was pointed out by the learned AR that the entire amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/- as taken by the Assessing Officer ... respectively and against that the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. The learned AR referring to the additional ground submitted that for the A.Y 2010-11, the assessee has admitted the amount of Rs.11.21 crores and for this amount the assessee is entitled to telescoping

Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 280/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yashwanth (staff of ShriFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram records that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 11.07.2023 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal on or before 10.09.2023, but the assessee could file appeal only on 06.11.2023 with the delay of 58 days. We find that there ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals

Sobha Devi Dilipkumar, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 108/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sobha Devi Dilipkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abypd 3389 E Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

record (para 6.6 of the CIT(A)’s order). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is contrary to the facts and also

Kiran Kumar Kammili, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 234/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 234/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Kiran Kumar Kammili, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 30-87-11, Kranthi Rh Colony, Ward International Taxation, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Amqpk 3056 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Kumar Pal ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Kumar PalFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

appeal ie., on 23/01/2024, we find from the record that there is a delay of 145 days in filing the assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the Bench has also noted that the assessee has not filed any petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for belated filing