← 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

Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Patna vs. Assessment Unit, Patna

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 431/PAT/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.429To 434/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd……………………………...………………. …………………....Appellant Feeder Balancing Dairy, Phulwarishariff, Patna, Bihar – 801505. [Pan: Aaaav8463B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi.…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishan Maitin, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.04.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). Since All The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee, Involve Common Facts & Arise Out Of Related Assessment & Penalty Proceedings, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. There Are Delays In Filing Of The Appeals, As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 80P

confirmed the assessment. I.T.A. Nos.429to 434/Pat/2025 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before

Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Patna vs. Assessment Unit, Patna

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 430/PAT/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.429To 434/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd……………………………...………………. …………………....Appellant Feeder Balancing Dairy, Phulwarishariff, Patna, Bihar – 801505. [Pan: Aaaav8463B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi.…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishan Maitin, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.04.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). Since All The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee, Involve Common Facts & Arise Out Of Related Assessment & Penalty Proceedings, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. There Are Delays In Filing Of The Appeals, As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 80P

confirmed the assessment. I.T.A. Nos.429to 434/Pat/2025 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before

Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Patna vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 429/PAT/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.429To 434/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd……………………………...………………. …………………....Appellant Feeder Balancing Dairy, Phulwarishariff, Patna, Bihar – 801505. [Pan: Aaaav8463B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi.…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishan Maitin, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 06, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Orders Dated 07.04.2025 Passed By The Cit(A)-Patna U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). Since All The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee, Involve Common Facts & Arise Out Of Related Assessment & Penalty Proceedings, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. There Are Delays In Filing Of The Appeals, As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 80P

confirmed the assessment. I.T.A. Nos.429to 434/Pat/2025 Vaishal Patliputra Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of the hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before

Sanddep Tiwari, West Champaran vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Bettiah, West Champaran

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 255/PAT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.255/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Tiwari..…………….………………. …………………....Appellant Vill: Alitolla, Po Thakraha, Via Nechua Jalalpur, West Champaran, Bettiah, Bihar- 841503.. [Pan: Apopt9064Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Bettiah…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singla, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.05.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Available On The Aims Module Of The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That During The Period 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 (Demonetisation Period), The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of ₹10,00,000 In His Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of India. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued. Since There Was Non-Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee, A Final

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

restricted the addition under section 69A of the Act to the said amount. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, contending that once income is estimated by applying a gross profit rate of 8%, the provisions of section 69A cannot be simultaneously invoked. It was argued that

Manmohan Singh & Sons, Ludhiana vs. CIT(A), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost as directed above

ITA 675/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

made under section 69A of the Act. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunities

Manmohan Singh & Sons, Ludhiana vs. CIT(A), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost as directed above

ITA 674/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

made under section 69A of the Act. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunities

Kumar Properties and Real Estate Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14, Pune

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

ITA 2798/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 270A

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has General

Kumar Matunga Project, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2200/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69

challenging the validity of reopening of the assessment. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to page 1 of the paper book drew the attention

Kishore Kashinath Koli, Panvel vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 2179/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Mrs. Naina ChaurasiaFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

filed any application for condonation of delay. 3 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed an affidavit along with medical certificates explaining the reasons for such delay

Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd, Kolhapur vs. PCIT-1, Pune

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

ITA 1049/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

conduct proper verification of facts and re-examine the issue. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Jurisdictional Error in invoking Section 263 Whether on the facts and circumstances of case

Yadiki Pacs, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 926/HYD/2025[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 80ASection 80P

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee, Ms. Lavanya, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the JAO issuing

Srirangarao Nadipallly, Karimnagar vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

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

ITA 844/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.844/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Srirangarao Nadipally Vs. Assistant Commissioner Karimnagar Of Income Tax Pan:Acbpn3816E Circle-1, Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. Kvssn Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sankar Pandi P - Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Srirangarao Nadipally (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Adv. KVSSN KumarFor Respondent: Sankar Pandi P - Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Srirangarao Nadipally 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that only three issues arise from the grounds of appeal of the assessee. He further submitted that the first issue

Mahathi Engineering Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 802/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on 14.03.2024, and in the ordinary course, the assessee should have been filed the appeal before the Tribunal on or before 13.05.2024. However, the appeal has been filed on 08.05.2025 with a delay of 360 days. The reasons for the delay ... silent till the A.O. has passed the order, and only after the A.O. has passed the order, has taken steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act, which clearly shows the intent of the assessee

Sri Raghvendra Agro Industries, Mantralayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Adoni

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

ITA 34/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Sworn By Shri Archaka Vyasarajachar, Partner Of The Assessee Firm, Explaining The Facts Relating To Filing Of The Appeal. As Per The Affidavit, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Served On The Assessee On 25.09.2024 & The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 24.11.2024. The Assessee Submitted That, Form No. 36, As Per The Prescribed Procedure, Was Filed Electronically On 20.11.2024, Which Is Within The Period Of Limitation.

Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44A

assessment year 2023-24. 2. At the outset, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit sworn by Shri Archaka Vyasarajachar, partner of the assessee firm, explaining the facts relating to filing ... appeal. As per the affidavit, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was served on the assessee on 25.09.2024 and the appeal before the Tribunal was required to be filed on or before 24.11.2024. The assessee submitted that, Form No. 36, as per the prescribed procedure, was filed electronically

St Jude Medical India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2085/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ld. JCIT. In Form No. 35 filed before Ld. JCIT, the assessee had inadvertently, in Column No. 2A of the relevant Form No. 35, mentioned the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act, instead of the order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Ld. JCIT disposed of the

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B

also, the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. JCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate, submitted that, Ld. JCIT erred in dismissing the appeal filed

Mohsin Himmati, Hyderabad vs. ADIT(Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 1768/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Adv. R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Smt.U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

ITA No 1768 of 2025 Mohsin Himmati आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A

Deepavali Balu Mahendra, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1715/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1715/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Deepavali Balu The Dcit, Vs. Mahendra, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(4), Pin – 500 096 Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Adspd2577N Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca, C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: MS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69A

department as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 11 ITA.No.1715/Hyd./2025 7. CA, C. Maheshwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) was erred in sustaining

Nuziveedu Swathi Coastal Consortium, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1340/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

railway track and conveyor belt system and allowed the depreciation thereon. The assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by filing appeal before the Tribunal and the ITAT, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench vide its combined order dated 26.10.2021 in appeals in ITA Nos.609 to 611 and 1511/Hyd/2019 ... Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 15 ITA Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 16 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee, Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made

Nuziveedu Swathi Coastal Consortium, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1339/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

railway track and conveyor belt system and allowed the depreciation thereon. The assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by filing appeal before the Tribunal and the ITAT, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench vide its combined order dated 26.10.2021 in appeals in ITA Nos.609 to 611 and 1511/Hyd/2019 ... Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 15 ITA Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 16 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee, Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made

Nuziveedu Swathi Coastal Consortium, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1338/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

railway track and conveyor belt system and allowed the depreciation thereon. The assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by filing appeal before the Tribunal and the ITAT, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench vide its combined order dated 26.10.2021 in appeals in ITA Nos.609 to 611 and 1511/Hyd/2019 ... Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 15 ITA Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 16 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee, Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made