← 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

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1879/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

section 148/147 are pending before the Hon'ble High Court and therefore cannot be treated as abated assessment. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds contenting the issues as tabulated herein above. Assessment order passed without issue of notice u/s.143 ... income under section 43CA. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the disallowance / additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 18 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mimbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

section 148/147 are pending before the Hon'ble High Court and therefore cannot be treated as abated assessment. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds contenting the issues as tabulated herein above. Assessment order passed without issue of notice u/s.143 ... income under section 43CA. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the disallowance / additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 18 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

section 148/147 are pending before the Hon'ble High Court and therefore cannot be treated as abated assessment. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds contenting the issues as tabulated herein above. Assessment order passed without issue of notice u/s.143 ... income under section 43CA. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the disallowance / additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 18 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB

DCIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1447/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2017-18) Dcit-3(4),Mumbai, 29Th Floor, Center-1, World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacr-4849-R ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka with Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj – CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 215JSection 40

further observe that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.797/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13 and ITA No.1769/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated

ITO Ward--2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Himanshu Lalit Ranka, Thane

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1082/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

profit from bogus purchase bills @12%. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely based on the facts that the notices issued under section

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.516/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Buro Happold Limited, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmix Axis, 06Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aabcb-9239-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation -1(3)(2),Mumbai 1810, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा /Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा /Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

Consulting Engineering Services and Common Cost Recharge holding them to be FTS in A.Y 2012-13. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1296/Mum/2017. The Co- ordinate Bench threadbare examined the issue and concluded as under: 20. ………………… In any case of the matter, the Department

Ibg (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 965/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)

assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who enhanced the income by Rs. 35,00,000/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal in ITA no. 5651/Del/2018 and the matter was restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to re- decide the issue after providing

Begud Beverges Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1798/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Saho, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer @100% of tax sought to be evaded on this count. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. I.T.A. No.1798/Del/2022 3 7. The main plank of the contention

DCIT, Circle-1(1)-Exemption, New Delhi vs. Hamdard Laboratories (India), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with low and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also." Furthermore, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in para 17 of the order has discussed the powers ... view of the above, the grounds raised by the appellant in the instant appeal are allowed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and both the grounds relate thereto. 12 6 Drawing our attention to the order of the Ld. AO it is submitted

Rosemary Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 903/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO. 8. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the hearing before us, the ld. AR argued based on the submissions filed before the ld. CIT(A). 10. It was submitted

DCIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 644/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who also sustained the addition. Aggrieved against this the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee ... Therefore, the disallowance made under this ground is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 11.1 Aggrieved against it, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 12. Learned CIT(DR) relied on the assessment order and submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who also sustained the addition. Aggrieved against this the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee ... Therefore, the disallowance made under this ground is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 11.1 Aggrieved against it, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 12. Learned CIT(DR) relied on the assessment order and submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 2082/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who also sustained the addition. Aggrieved against this the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee ... Therefore, the disallowance made under this ground is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 11.1 Aggrieved against it, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 12. Learned CIT(DR) relied on the assessment order and submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance

ACIT, Circle, Panipat vs. Paliwal Overseas P.Ltd, Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 1263/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who also sustained the addition. Aggrieved against this the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee ... Therefore, the disallowance made under this ground is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 11.1 Aggrieved against it, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 12. Learned CIT(DR) relied on the assessment order and submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance

Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Panipat vs. DCIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA No

ITA 5878/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 36

assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who also sustained the addition. Aggrieved against this the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee ... Therefore, the disallowance made under this ground is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 11.1 Aggrieved against it, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 12. Learned CIT(DR) relied on the assessment order and submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance

Hero Wiretex Limited, Vizianagaram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 37/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.37/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Hero Wiretex Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Anthakapalli Village Income Tax Ponduru Road, Rajam Central Circle-1 Vizianagarm Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcs 1425R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.ArunaFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

case, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Governament Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 150/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Government Polytechnic College Ward-1 Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaagg1122Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246

against Quarter 4 of F.Y.2013-14 for Form 24Q and 26Q. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by rasing the following grounds of appeal : 4 I.T.A. No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023, A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam 1. The order of the learned

Governament Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 149/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Government Polytechnic College Ward-1 Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaagg1122Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246

against Quarter 4 of F.Y.2013-14 for Form 24Q and 26Q. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by rasing the following grounds of appeal : 4 I.T.A. No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023, A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam 1. The order of the learned

Kesava Smaraka Samithi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn in I

ITA 134/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.132/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Ponnur Educational Development Vs. Income Tax Officer Society (Exemptions) 1, G.B.C., Ponnur, Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aacap4604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.134/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Kesava Smaraka Samithi Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, Rajkamal Complex (Exemptions) Main Road, Lakshmipuram Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaatk2222J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) [Cit(E)], Hyderabad Dated 09.02.2023 & 24.02.2023. Since The Grounds Filed By The Assessees Are 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

filed by the assessee was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E). 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 3 I.T.A. No.132/Viz/2023 & 134/Viz/2023 Ponnur Educational Development Society & Kesava Smaraka Samithi, Guntur 1 The order ... assessee in Form No.10AB for regsitration u/s 12AB of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Hence, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. However, by the time the assessee’s appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal, registration was granted and the order granting registration

Ponnur Educational Development Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn in I

ITA 132/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.132/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Ponnur Educational Development Vs. Income Tax Officer Society (Exemptions) 1, G.B.C., Ponnur, Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aacap4604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.134/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Kesava Smaraka Samithi Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, Rajkamal Complex (Exemptions) Main Road, Lakshmipuram Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaatk2222J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) [Cit(E)], Hyderabad Dated 09.02.2023 & 24.02.2023. Since The Grounds Filed By The Assessees Are 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

filed by the assessee was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E). 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 3 I.T.A. No.132/Viz/2023 & 134/Viz/2023 Ponnur Educational Development Society & Kesava Smaraka Samithi, Guntur 1 The order ... assessee in Form No.10AB for regsitration u/s 12AB of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Hence, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. However, by the time the assessee’s appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal, registration was granted and the order granting registration