“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

outset, we noted from the appeal record that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. DR drawn our attention to the Affidavit filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam wherein the Ld. ACIT ... perusal of the contents of the Affidavit filed by the Ld. ACIT explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeals within the stipulated time as prescribed. Hence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Psa Construction, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

deleted the addition made by the AO and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Sr. DR filed his written submissions, which read as under :- Sub:- Appeal filed under section 253 by the Revenue in the case of PSA construction

Bhaveshbhai Amulakhbhai Sonani, Surat vs. DCIT, Central Circlle-3, Surat

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

ITA 118/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhaveshkumar Deputy Commissioner Of Amulakhbhai Sonani, A- Income-Tax, Central Vs 604, Sai Residency, Near Circle-3, Surat, 5Thfloor, Gajera School, Katargam, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395004 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Apsps 0912 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [For Short To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2018- 19, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Bhaveshkumar A Sonani “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In In Making An Addition Of Rs.16,32,732/- U/S 69A Of The Act Treating The Jewellery Found & Seized During The Cruse Of Search As Unexplained, On Erroneous Grounds Without Appreciating That The Same Is Fully Reflected In The Appellant’S & His Family Member’S Regular Books Of Accounts. Hence, The Impugned Addition As Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Needs To Be Deleted As Being Absolutely Erroneous, Incorrect, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69A

basis of such observation, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental Representative

Bhuramal Rajmal Surana & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Her; (B) No Proceedings Were Directed To Be Initiated In Original Appeal Order Dt. 28.02.2022 And/Or; (C) It Has Been Passed In Haste Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Manisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 271ASection 41(1)Section 68

section 270 of the IT Act, 1961. Now, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A) dated 27.03.2023, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R submitted his written submissions as under :- “ Ground Nos. 1 & 2: Both grounds relate to same issue hence

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Bench of this Tribunal and the Tribunal held as under: - “7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section

Usg Boral Building Products(India) Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8446/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Knauf India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, (Earlier Known As Usg Boral Ward-27(2), Building Products (India) Pvt.Ltd.), New Delhi. S-217, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Park, South Delhi, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aabcl1984A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ca, Gopal Agarwal, Ca & Shubham Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 37

restored to the AO for verification and decisions afresh. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. Ground Nos.1 & 5 raised by the assessee are general in nature, needs no 6. separate adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 to 2.3 raised

ACIT Spl. Range-1, New Delhi vs. Ameriprise India Private Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2928/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses.” 10. We note that the tax effect in this appeal is below the monetary limit for filing of appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. It may not be out of context to mention

ACIT Spl. Range-1, New Delhi vs. Ameriprise India Private Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2927/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

Income Tax-1, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed

Fishery Survey of India Employees Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.23/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Fishery Survey Of India Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit & Thrift Ward-1(1) Society Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour Complex Beach Road, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafat3533M] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048861637(1) Dated 17.01.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 24.12.2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Society Act Had Filed It’S Return Of Income On 2

For Appellant: Shri C Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

return of income, for which no sufficient cause could be adduced by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1 . The orders passed under the provisions of section 250 of I.T.Act is contrary to the provisions

Gudibandi Somireddy Educational Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Guntur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 131/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.130/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Sri Ravindranath Educational Vs. Income Tax Officer Development Society (Exemptions) D.No.5-50-17 Guntur 6/14, Brodiepet Guntur [Aagas8819N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.131/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Sri Gudibandi Somireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Educational Society (Exemptions) D.No.5-76, Kollipara Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aagts4541J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2023 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)] Dated 24.02.2023. Since The Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Common, These Appeals Are 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

I.T.A. No.130 & 131/Viz/2023 Sri Ravindranath Educational Development Society & Sri Gudibandi Somireddy Educational Society, Guntur 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemtpion), Hyderabad is contrary to the facts and also

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 130/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Marturi Srinivasa Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Marturi Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-75, 2Nd Line Ward-1(1) Rajeev Nagar Colony Guntur Atchampet Post, Guntur [Pan : Bvnpm4138E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

assessee was getting commission and discounts on such sales. 4. 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

Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department is contrary

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad erred ... allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 23. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The decision

Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner Or Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 83/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Meka Kasi Viseswarudu, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 212/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Meka Kasi Visweswarudu Vs. Income Tax Officer K-5 Pradeep Nagar Ward-1 Vt Agraharam Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Abvpm2320H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri YA Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee. 3 I.T.A. No.212/Viz/2020, A.Y.2012-13 Meka Kasi Visweswarudu, Vizianagaram 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the ground raised against assessability of long

Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Almech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 148

disallowed the entire amount of purchases mentioned above and the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has made identical addition in succeeding assessment year i.e. in A.Y. 2011-12. However