appeal before the tribunal — 16,033 case laws

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7273/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

deduction of Rs. 9,69,602/- claimed by the assessee on account of advertisement expenses in AY 2013-14. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the above disallowances and restoring the above issues ... disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A in AY 2013-14 against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Likewise, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/- on investment made in windmill; disallowance

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2175/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

deduction of Rs. 9,69,602/- claimed by the assessee on account of advertisement expenses in AY 2013-14. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the above disallowances and restoring the above issues ... disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A in AY 2013-14 against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Likewise, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/- on investment made in windmill; disallowance

M/S. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2162/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

deduction of Rs. 9,69,602/- claimed by the assessee on account of advertisement expenses in AY 2013-14. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the above disallowances and restoring the above issues ... disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A in AY 2013-14 against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Likewise, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of depreciation of Rs. 11,41,153/- on investment made in windmill; disallowance

Dubasi Babaji Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 95/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2023 & 95/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dubasi Babaji Rao Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of A1/413, Vaisakhi Skyline Income Tax Geetam College Road Circle-1(1) Yendada Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acfpd9977J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.Muralidhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

passed by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A) erred in the law and facts of the case and also

Dubasi Babaji Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 94/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2023 & 95/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dubasi Babaji Rao Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of A1/413, Vaisakhi Skyline Income Tax Geetam College Road Circle-1(1) Yendada Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acfpd9977J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.Muralidhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

passed by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A) erred in the law and facts of the case and also

Vasudha Shelters, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 228/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.227/Viz/2023 & 228/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Vasudha Shelters Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.27-23-31, Gopala Reddy Street Income Tax Governorpet Circle-1(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aagfv6727K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed on 21.03.2018 assessing the total income at Rs.53,11,776/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and pleaded the Ld.CIT(A) to adjourn till the disposal of the said appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed order vide ITA 137/Viz/2015 ... 417/Viz/2018 dated 15.06.2022 for the A.Y.2010-11. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the reply of the assessee is incorrect as the assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal was disposed off and the assessee was allowed for withdrawal of the appeal as pleaded by the assessee, which was not brought

Vasudha Shelters, Vijayawada vs. Assiatant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 227/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.227/Viz/2023 & 228/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Vasudha Shelters Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.27-23-31, Gopala Reddy Street Income Tax Governorpet Circle-1(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aagfv6727K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed on 21.03.2018 assessing the total income at Rs.53,11,776/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and pleaded the Ld.CIT(A) to adjourn till the disposal of the said appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed order vide ITA 137/Viz/2015 ... 417/Viz/2018 dated 15.06.2022 for the A.Y.2010-11. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the reply of the assessee is incorrect as the assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal was disposed off and the assessee was allowed for withdrawal of the appeal as pleaded by the assessee, which was not brought

Sri Seetaramanjanenya Sortex, Kakinada vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 147/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.147/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1-2015/A, Uppalanka Income Tax Kakinada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abdfs4641P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Paradeep Tayal & OrsFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessee. 6 I.T.A. No.147/Viz/2023, A.Y.2018-19 Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex, Kakinada 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.PCIT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. That the Ld.PCIT has not given opportunity of being heard virtually as order u/s 263 dated

Meramchand Nemichand, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 129/VIZ/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.128/Viz/2023 & 129/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Meramchand Nemichand Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-13-40 Ward-1(1) M.N.Buildings, Noonevari Street Guntur Choutra, Guntur [Pan : Aabfn7853M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44A

computation on interest charged u/s 234B as per provisions of law. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Meramchand Nemichand, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 128/VIZ/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.128/Viz/2023 & 129/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Meramchand Nemichand Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.21-13-40 Ward-1(1) M.N.Buildings, Noonevari Street Guntur Choutra, Guntur [Pan : Aabfn7853M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44A

computation on interest charged u/s 234B as per provisions of law. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Vijay Pemmaraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Incomr Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.126/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Vijay Pemmaraju Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.49-51-1A, Plot No.20 Ward-2(5) Flat No.303, Sankalp Paradise Visakhapatnam Santhipuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aempp5571M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y.Surya Chandra Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 1Section 10Section 154Section 2Section 3

433/313 CTR 779 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. 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. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ancpr 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271D

along with an affidavit, filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee explained the reasons for belated filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted herein below for reference: “1 …… 2. The appellant suffered from high fever from 24/10/2022 onwards ... took necessary steps and filed the appeal on 9/12/2022. ……” 3 3. On perusal of the reasons advanced by the assessee for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 34 days, we find that due to ill health of the assessee the assessee

Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C(2)

treating the land as capital asset and thereby confirmed the addition of short term capital gains. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental Representative

Rajeshbhai D. Dungarani (HUF), Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

ITA 561/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 5

order was passed on 09/05/2023, however the present appeal is filed on 14/08/2013, thus, there is a delay of 37 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that ... appeal belatedly. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that when there is mistake on the part of Chartered Accountant in filing appeal before the Tribunal, the delay may be condoned as has been held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Mrs. Premalatha Pagaria

Aabahana, Cuttack vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Berhampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.225/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Aabahana, Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Berhampur At: Malyabanta, Nachuni, Khurda-752028 Pan No. :Aabta 9704 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.04.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052225643(1), For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Return Of The Assessee Came To Be Filed On 27.09.2018 For The Relevant Assessment Year. In The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Exemption U/S.11 Of The Act Had Been Denied On The Ground That There Was Delay In Filing The Form 10B. The Assessee Had Filed Rectification Application U/S.154 Of The Act & The Cit(E), Hyderabad Had Condoned The Delay In Filing Of The Form 10B. The Rectification Application Had Been Allowed & The Assessee Was Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.11 Of The Act. Subsequently, Another

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

filing Form 10B by the ld. CIT(E), Hyderabad is not an issue which can be brought up as subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission that as the appeal itself is against the withdrawal of the condonation of delay in filing of Form

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 573/MUM/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year, the additional ground No.3 of the appeal ... appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of the aforesaid amount. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We find that in assessment year 1995- 96 the Assessing Officer in identical manner had added provision for doubtful debts

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3055/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year, the additional ground No.3 of the appeal ... appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of the aforesaid amount. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We find that in assessment year 1995- 96 the Assessing Officer in identical manner had added provision for doubtful debts

The DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2655/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year, the additional ground No.3 of the appeal ... appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of the aforesaid amount. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We find that in assessment year 1995- 96 the Assessing Officer in identical manner had added provision for doubtful debts

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year, the additional ground No.3 of the appeal ... appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of the aforesaid amount. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We find that in assessment year 1995- 96 the Assessing Officer in identical manner had added provision for doubtful debts

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1933/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessment Year 1995 96 following the ratio laid down in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra) allowed identical ground raised in the appeal before the Tribunal. Since, there has been no change in the facts and legal position in impugned assessment year, the additional ground No.3 of the appeal ... appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of the aforesaid amount. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We find that in assessment year 1995- 96 the Assessing Officer in identical manner had added provision for doubtful debts

“appeal before the tribunal”

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Dubasi Babaji Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

Dubasi Babaji Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

Vasudha Shelters, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

Vasudha Shelters, Vijayawada vs. Assiatant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

Sri Seetaramanjanenya Sortex, Kakinada vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

Meramchand Nemichand, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

Meramchand Nemichand, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

Vijay Pemmaraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Incomr Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

Rajeshbhai D. Dungarani (HUF), Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(3), Surat

Aabahana, Cuttack vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Berhampur

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai