← 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

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

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

ITA 1337/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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 1336/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

Yadagiri Gurram, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 1214/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी. सं / Ita No.1214/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Yadagiri Gurram Nalgonda Pan:Bdrpg9128G (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Nalgonda (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Adv. Dayakar राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Madhukar Aves, 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 Yadagiri Gurram, (“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 30.05.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18.

For Appellant: Adv. DayakarFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271ASection 271FSection 69A

Rs.7,18,193/-, thereby partly allowing the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Page 3 of 8 ITA No 1214 of 2025 Yadagiri Gurram Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) raised a legal ground

Naresh Samala, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1196/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President)

Section 115BSection 44ASection 68

Income-tax Act, 1961. 5 Naresh Samala 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made

Sasi Kiran Sunkara, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1190/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69

under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Dr. S. Rama Rao, Advocate, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining

Iris Realty LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4129/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4129/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & S.A. No. 142/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 4129/Chny/2025] M/S. Iris Realty Llp, The Deputy Commissioner (Successor To Iris Realty Vs. Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd.,) Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), 11, Kakani Towers, Chennai. 15, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aagfi 9722F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

representing unexplained share-capital is confirmed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for admission of additional evidences. The Ld.AR submitted that the relevant details were furnished by the assessee company during the course

M/S. Shark Dyeing Mills, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2692/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2692/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Shark Dyeing Mills, The Income Tax Officer, No.5A, Suriaprabhagarden, Vs. Ward 1(2), M.P. Nagar Extension, Tiruppur. Tiruppur – 641 607. Pan: Acyfs 7041R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sharavanan, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Sharavanan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

filed appeal before the FAA. The FAA confirmed the penalty imposed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR had placed on record the NCLT proceedings disrupting operations of the firm, death certificate of partner indicating illness of the partner

Prahlad Singh, Sonepat vs. PCIT, Rohtak, Sonepat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above very

ITA 3563/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaprahlad Singh, Vs. Pcit, Rohtak 1455/31, Gali No. 2, Ward No. 31, Aayakar Bhawan Pragati Nagar, Opp. Mansarovar Sonepat, Haryana-131001 Park, Rohtak (Pan: Crhps8742R) Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rahul Agarwal & Rajesh K. Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul Agarwal & Rajesh K. Agarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 263Section 69A

observations made above and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The only short point for our adjudication

DCIT, Vikash Bhawan vs. Rajan Kumar, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 136/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukladcit, Vs. Rajan Kumar Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor, 31, Vijay Block, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Delhi (Pan: Caapk8381E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Jain, CA & Sh. Samyak Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At time of hearing, ld. CIT(DR) submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Faridabad Presswell Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the

ITA 2801/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2801/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Faridabad Presswell Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs. 24, Ashoka Chamber, 5B, Central Circle-25, Room No.317, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaacfs815B Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

identified with the grounds raised either by the appellant or by the respondent. In the present case the subject- matter of the appeal before the Tribunal was the reduction of tax rebate in respect of Rs.3,54,716. It is impossible to contend that the subject-matter of the appeal ... assessee had obtained relief before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to a particular extent. And this was objected to by the department in the appeal before the Tribunal. The applicability of section 34 of the Act was a general question raised by the assessee even before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Delhi vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Delhi

Accordingly, we find no error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby uphold. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2379/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Dy. Cit, Crystal Crop Protection Circle-4(2), Delhi. Limited, Vs. B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Arising Out Of Ita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Crystal Crop Protection Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-4(2), Delhi. B-95, Wazirpur, Vs. Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Dcit Vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee For Following Assessment Years.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

partly allowed the appeal and disallowances made by AO was deleted. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on not appreciating the fact that the expense claimed ... appeal of the assessee wherein additional grounds taken by the assessee are also allowed. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Delhi

Accordingly, we find no error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby uphold. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2330/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Dy. Cit, Crystal Crop Protection Circle-4(2), Delhi. Limited, Vs. B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Arising Out Of Ita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Crystal Crop Protection Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-4(2), Delhi. B-95, Wazirpur, Vs. Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Dcit Vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee For Following Assessment Years.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

partly allowed the appeal and disallowances made by AO was deleted. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on not appreciating the fact that the expense claimed ... appeal of the assessee wherein additional grounds taken by the assessee are also allowed. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition

Singhal Fasteners Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/DEL/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs M/S Singhal Fasteners Company Ito Ward-8(4) New Delhi Private Limited 67-68 Rampuri Govind Puri Kalkaji New Delhi-19 Pan No. Aaacs1428H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 147Section 148

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who vide his order dated 27-10-2020 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR has submitted that the ld. Assessing officer recorded the reason only on the basis of information received from Investigating wing

ITO, Ward- 3, Karnal vs. Mahabir Solvent Oil Mills, Karnal

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

ITA 6414/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito, Ward-3, Vs. Mahabir Solvent Oil Aayakar Bhawan, Setor- Mills, Karnal 12, Karnal G.T. Road, Haryana Taraori, Karnal Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

fact that the partnership came into existence on 31.3.2008. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We heard both the parties and perused the records. At the time of hearing, Learned authorized representative for Department submitted that

Income Tax Officer, Khanna vs. Rohit Gupta, Khanna

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

ITA 861/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: it is finally disposed of.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

fresh assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said action, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Revenue has assailed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that sufficient opportunities were already afforded to the assessee

The Sirsa Bansivat Cooperative Labour & Construction Society Limited Sirsa, Sirsa vs. The Jao Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Sirsa, Sirsa

In the result, all the appeal of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1213/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1213/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Sirsa Bansivat The Jao, Cooperative & Construction बनाम Ito, Ward-1, Society Limited, Sirsa Vs. Bhadra Talagb, Mohallah Jandwala, Sirsa "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aadat3898B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Garg, Ca (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr (Virtual Mode)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

finally heard or disposed off. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 358 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay

Anant Bhalchandra Hendre, Mahad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 597/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anup ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 107Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 123 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides ... sustained in terms of the observations herein-above. 7.0. Thus, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-appearance/non-compliance before

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Sagar Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

addition on merit by observing as under: 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Sangli

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

ITA 1619/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1619/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Umesh MaliFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 147Section 44Section 69A

short ‘the Act’). 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 157 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which gave rise to delay and the contents of said Affidavit reads as under: “3. Currently ... reason to gain time. There is no negligence on my part during the whole process. There being sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the tribunal in time, I pray the hon'ble members of the bench to condone the delay occurred in the filing of the appeal

Vilayil Satyan Pillai, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 2279/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kishan Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132ASection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 250

during the course of appellate proceedings, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 21.01.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4 | P a g e Vilayil Satyan Pillai vs Assessment Unit, NFAC Delhi 4. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that both