← 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

Himanshu Goyal, Dhamtari vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

In the result legal grounds raised by the assessee under present appeal is allowed

ITA 144/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-2013) Himanshu Goyal, Vs Pr.Cit, Raipur-1, Raipur Nawagaon Road, Dhamtari, 793773, (C.G.) Pan No. :Agtpg1746Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 263

aside the assessment order to frame the assessment afresh. 6. Against the above order of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the same issue, having identical facts, has been delt in the case of assessee

Cyqyator Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2370/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2370 /मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2015-16) Cyquator Media Services Private Limited, 18Th Floor, A Wing Marathon Futurex, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaecp-0069-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 6(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jay Bhansali "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Eight Grounds. All The Grounds Of Appeal Are In Respect Of A Single Issue I.E. Disallowance U/S. 14A Of 2 The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 [In Short ‘The Rules’].

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta
Section 14A

Representative of the 3 assessee pointed that similar disallowance u/r.8D was made in Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal . The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by Assessing Officer u/r.8D(2)(ii). 3.2 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further submitted that ... made by Assessing Officer u/r.8D(2)(ii) in respect of interest expenditure. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1209/Mum/2023. The Tribunal vide order dated 19/07/2023 deleted the disallowance made u/r.8D(2)(ii) by holding as under: 5 “ 6. We have considered the submissions

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1936/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

delay for 9 years in filing the appeal and dismissed appeal as not admitted. 4. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Before me also, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that an opportunity

M/S. Halo Technologies and Training Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- TDS (CPC), Ghaziabad

ITA 1770/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: It.

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha NanwaniFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

Tribunal and submitted the Director of the Company did not have knowledge about the procedural requirements which contributed in delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. She submitted that for the same reasons there was a delay of 9 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal which may also ... days in filing the appeal. Accepting the aforesaid submission of the Appellant we hold that Appellant had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal in time and therefore, delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. As regards appeal filed

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Campus Eai India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

account of non- deduction of TDS on such payments is erroneous. 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the three grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue relate thereto. Ground No. 1 Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of payment

M/S Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(2), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 438/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.438/Srt/2022 (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S Sachin Udyog Nagar Assistant Commissioner Of Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Income Tax-Circle-1(2), Vs 2Nd Floor, Vivekanand Aaaykar Bhavan, Majura Chambers, Beside Rajeshree Gate, Surat-3950001 Hall, Sagarampura, Surat- 395002 Pan No. Aacts 7414 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

serving its members, who are in dire need of help for agricultural or other co-operative activity. Further aggrieved, assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative

Bhinnamal Tragad Brahmin Samast Panch, Surat vs. CIT, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 19/SRT/2021[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Surat20 Oct 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2021 (Hearing In Physical Court) Shree Bhinnamal Tragad Commissioner Of Income Tax Brahmin Samast Panch, (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Vs H.No.10/1851, Mahalaxmi Mata Aaykar Bhavan, 100 Foot Ni Pole, Soni Falia, Surat- Road, Anandnagar- 395003 Prahladnagar Road, Pan No. Aaxts 7703 H Ahmedabad-380015 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 12ASection 254(1)

genuineness of activities. The application of assessee-trust was rejected. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(E) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative

Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int), Ward-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1131/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 1131, 1129, 1130/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya, Ito, Int. Tax Ward 4(3)(1), 68, Manor Road, Oldham Ol4 Mumbai. Vs. 5Nb Lancashire, United Kingdom. Pan No. Aghpv 7878 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ashish A. Thakurdesai Revenue By : Mr. Anil Sant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish A. ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 153CSection 234A

assessment orders Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya 4 Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya ITA Nos. 1129 to 1131/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 1129 to 1131/Mum/2023 which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int), Ward-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1130/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 1131, 1129, 1130/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya, Ito, Int. Tax Ward 4(3)(1), 68, Manor Road, Oldham Ol4 Mumbai. Vs. 5Nb Lancashire, United Kingdom. Pan No. Aghpv 7878 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ashish A. Thakurdesai Revenue By : Mr. Anil Sant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish A. ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 153CSection 234A

assessment orders Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya 4 Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya ITA Nos. 1129 to 1131/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 1129 to 1131/Mum/2023 which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int), Ward-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1129/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 1131, 1129, 1130/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya, Ito, Int. Tax Ward 4(3)(1), 68, Manor Road, Oldham Ol4 Mumbai. Vs. 5Nb Lancashire, United Kingdom. Pan No. Aghpv 7878 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ashish A. Thakurdesai Revenue By : Mr. Anil Sant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish A. ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 153CSection 234A

assessment orders Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya 4 Ashwinkumar Liladhar Vaidya ITA Nos. 1129 to 1131/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 1129 to 1131/Mum/2023 which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

M/S. Ravi Developments, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Thane

ITA 765/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Assessing Officer. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal contending the various additions / disallowances made by the assessee. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 04/08/2022 (ITA No.764 &765/Mum/2022

M/S. Ravi Developments, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Central Cir -2 Thanee, Thane

ITA 764/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Assessing Officer. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal contending the various additions / disallowances made by the assessee. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 04/08/2022 (ITA No.764 &765/Mum/2022

Diwyesh Mahendra Dave, Mumbai vs. DCIT 26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 204/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the disallowance. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 25/05/2022 deleted the disallowance by relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case

Dy.Comm of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1837/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed and deleted the addition by placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and Tribunals. Aggrieved, the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The co- ordinate bench, vide order dated 10/08/2022 (ITA No.1836/Mum/2022 upheld the order of the CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision ... having the same origin namely borrowed funds, CIT (A) set aside the prima facie adjustment made by the assessing officer. 17. In further appeal before the Tribunal, Tribunal held that order passed by the CIT(A) was a well-reasoned one which did not warrant interference in further appeal. Tribunal

Dy.Comm of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1836/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed and deleted the addition by placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and Tribunals. Aggrieved, the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The co- ordinate bench, vide order dated 10/08/2022 (ITA No.1836/Mum/2022 upheld the order of the CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision ... having the same origin namely borrowed funds, CIT (A) set aside the prima facie adjustment made by the assessing officer. 17. In further appeal before the Tribunal, Tribunal held that order passed by the CIT(A) was a well-reasoned one which did not warrant interference in further appeal. Tribunal

ACIT Cent. Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sumatichand Gouti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 68

Bombay High Court in yet another case of Gurinder Singh Bawa (2017)(70 taxmann.com 398) as under:- “5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that no assessment

Tex-Styles International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1915/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

employees’ contribution to PF / ESI. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 07/07/2022 (ITA No.1915/Mum/2021) allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional

ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Brijwasi Jewellers, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1950/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

addition of Rs.42,46,330/- i.e. 20% of Rs. 2,12,31,648/-. 19. Aggrieved, both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). The revenue filed appeal against the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) on account of bogus

Brijwasi Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1027/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

addition of Rs.42,46,330/- i.e. 20% of Rs. 2,12,31,648/-. 19. Aggrieved, both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). The revenue filed appeal against the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) on account of bogus

ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Brijwasi Jewellers, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 882/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

addition of Rs.42,46,330/- i.e. 20% of Rs. 2,12,31,648/-. 19. Aggrieved, both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). The revenue filed appeal against the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) on account of bogus