← 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

Solvay Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangkok vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 335/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

order treating the amount received by the assessee as FTS and charged 10% on the total receipts. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 12. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the revenue authorities and argued that in the absence of any clause

Green Bio Tech, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 529/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 529/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Green Bio Tech Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aaifg4254G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 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 Penalty Of Rs.22,78,444/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Advocate T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 40A(3)

upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Page 3 of 7 ITA No 529 of 2023 Green Bio Tech Hyderabad 6. The learned Counsel

Rajesh Kala, Jaipur vs. CIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 206/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms Sweta Kawar (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

dismissed.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds as stated in para 2 above. In support of the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the written

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 995/BANG/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Texas Instrument (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 66/3, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Raman Circle – 7(1)(1), Nagar, S. O, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaact 5445 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 4(2)Section 40

dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 28.01.2020. Against the order of the CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the CIT(A) passed the impugned order dated

Mohammed Masood, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1093/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

accordingly the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of material available before him. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and he had no taxable income, therefore the assessee did not file

Hireright Llc, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 3413/DEL/2023[Hireright LLC ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kishore Kunal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR
Section 10(50)Section 115ASection 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 5Section 9

respectively being in the nature of royalty/FTS chargeable to tax in India. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. The main issue arising out of all the grounds raised before us is whether the income of the assessee from

Uk Paints (Overseas) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 678/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 292C

additions made were subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who affirmed the additions made and the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos. 675 to 678/Del/2020 6 U K Paints (Overseas) Ltd. 5. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee filed letter issued from ACIT

Uk Paints (Overseas) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 677/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 292C

additions made were subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who affirmed the additions made and the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos. 675 to 678/Del/2020 6 U K Paints (Overseas) Ltd. 5. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee filed letter issued from ACIT

Uk Paints (Overseas) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 676/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 292C

additions made were subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who affirmed the additions made and the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos. 675 to 678/Del/2020 6 U K Paints (Overseas) Ltd. 5. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee filed letter issued from ACIT

Uk Paints (Overseas) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 675/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 292C

additions made were subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who affirmed the additions made and the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos. 675 to 678/Del/2020 6 U K Paints (Overseas) Ltd. 5. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee filed letter issued from ACIT

Kishan Kumar Agarwal, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad 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) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Kishan Kumar Agarwal 7. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that pursuant to the search & seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, the assessee was given notice u/s 153A

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 401/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

confirmed the assessment order for all the assessment years under appeal. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the land was purchased way back in 1994-95. Up to the assessment year 2008-09, the lands

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 400/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

confirmed the assessment order for all the assessment years under appeal. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the land was purchased way back in 1994-95. Up to the assessment year 2008-09, the lands

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 399/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

confirmed the assessment order for all the assessment years under appeal. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the land was purchased way back in 1994-95. Up to the assessment year 2008-09, the lands

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 398/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

confirmed the assessment order for all the assessment years under appeal. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the land was purchased way back in 1994-95. Up to the assessment year 2008-09, the lands

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 397/CHNY/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

confirmed the assessment order for all the assessment years under appeal. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the land was purchased way back in 1994-95. Up to the assessment year 2008-09, the lands

Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, CPC Bengaluru, Bangaluru

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

ITA 1041/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1041/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 25, Vignesam Layout, Gandhinagar Ii Ward 1, Pollachi. Extn., Udumalaipet, Tiruppur 642 126. [Pan:Aclpa5394G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Kumaresh, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 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 25.05.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 12 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.

For Appellant: Shri N. Kumaresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

confirmed the additions and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing copy of the details of remittance as well as holidays’ list of the ITAT, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that the due date

Vande Matharam Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Limited, Moodbidri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Mangalore

ITA 968/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka). 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the case laws relied on, written submissions filed before

M/S. Mandya Krishik Sarvodaya Trust, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, & Tps, Mandya

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

ITA 1121/BANG/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Mandya Krishik Sarvodaya Trust, Vs. Ito, No.Ca 04, Krishik Sparda Soudha, Ward – 1 & Tps, 1St Stage, Khb Extension, Karasavadi Road, Mandya. Mandya – 571 401. Pan : Aaatk 8975 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 10ASection 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

under section 143(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the petition filed before the PCIT for condoning delay in filing Form 10B, the Provisional Registration Certificate

M/S. Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1013/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S Government Tool Room & Vs. Ito (Exemption), Training Centre, Ward - 1 1, Rajajinagar Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Rajajinagar, Bengaluru -560 044. Pan : Aaacg 8162 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250

made by Assessing Officer is with regard to disallowance of depreciation therefore, requires no separate adjudication.” 6. Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that assessee has not claimed application of income towards depreciation as corresponding income shown under the head “deferred grant