← 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

Shakti Singh Gulia, Bahadurgarh vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 4618/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act r.w. Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that Financial Year 2013-14 relevant

Shakti Singh Gulia, Bahadurgarh vs. ITO, Ward- 4, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6115/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act r.w. Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that Financial Year 2013-14 relevant

Kakatiya Sangham, Tanuku vs. Incpme Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kakatiya Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-348 Ward-1 Bypass Road (Chivatam) Tanuku Tanuku, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaatk7209H] 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 : 19.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : 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/250/2022-23/1043166326(1) Dated 25.05.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 23.09.2014 With The Delay Of 183 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Was Passed

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. 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 (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Kpr Agrochem Limited, Balabhadrapuram vs. DCIT Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in I

ITA 223/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2021 & 81/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Circle-1 D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Kakinada Balabhadrapuram East Godavari [Pan : Aadck0257B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2022 To 223/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Income Tax Balabhadrapuram Circle-1 East Godavari Kakinada [Pan : Aadck0257B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Shri A.Chakradhar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

assessee, by relying on the cases as detailed in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 3 I.T.A. No.80 & 81/Viz/2021,221-223/Viz/2022 A.Y.2013-14 to 2017-18 M/s KPR Agrochem Ltd., East Godavari

Kpr Agrochem Limited, Balabhadrapuram vs. DCIT Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in I

ITA 222/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2021 & 81/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Circle-1 D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Kakinada Balabhadrapuram East Godavari [Pan : Aadck0257B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2022 To 223/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Income Tax Balabhadrapuram Circle-1 East Godavari Kakinada [Pan : Aadck0257B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Shri A.Chakradhar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

assessee, by relying on the cases as detailed in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 3 I.T.A. No.80 & 81/Viz/2021,221-223/Viz/2022 A.Y.2013-14 to 2017-18 M/s KPR Agrochem Ltd., East Godavari

Kpr Agrochem Limited, Balabhadrapuram vs. DCIT Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in I

ITA 221/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2021 & 81/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Circle-1 D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Kakinada Balabhadrapuram East Godavari [Pan : Aadck0257B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2022 To 223/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Income Tax Balabhadrapuram Circle-1 East Godavari Kakinada [Pan : Aadck0257B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Shri A.Chakradhar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

assessee, by relying on the cases as detailed in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 3 I.T.A. No.80 & 81/Viz/2021,221-223/Viz/2022 A.Y.2013-14 to 2017-18 M/s KPR Agrochem Ltd., East Godavari

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada vs. Kpr Agrochem Limited, Balabhadrapuram

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in I

ITA 81/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2021 & 81/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Circle-1 D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Kakinada Balabhadrapuram East Godavari [Pan : Aadck0257B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2022 To 223/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Income Tax Balabhadrapuram Circle-1 East Godavari Kakinada [Pan : Aadck0257B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Shri A.Chakradhar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

assessee, by relying on the cases as detailed in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 3 I.T.A. No.80 & 81/Viz/2021,221-223/Viz/2022 A.Y.2013-14 to 2017-18 M/s KPR Agrochem Ltd., East Godavari

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada vs. Kpr Agrochem Limited, Balabhadrapuram

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in I

ITA 80/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2021 & 81/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Circle-1 D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Kakinada Balabhadrapuram East Godavari [Pan : Aadck0257B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2022 To 223/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Income Tax Balabhadrapuram Circle-1 East Godavari Kakinada [Pan : Aadck0257B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Shri A.Chakradhar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

assessee, by relying on the cases as detailed in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 3 I.T.A. No.80 & 81/Viz/2021,221-223/Viz/2022 A.Y.2013-14 to 2017-18 M/s KPR Agrochem Ltd., East Godavari

Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Dhiran Mandali Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

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

ITA 141/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.141/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Deputy Commissioner Of Nagri Sahakari Dhiran Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Vs Mandali Ltd., At & P.O( Surat Aaykar Bhavan, Madhi, Tal. Bardoli, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-395006 395002 Pan No: Aadas 5644 L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Yogesh S. Gamit, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 22.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21.04.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 15.06.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 23.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2014-15, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Dcit, Circle-2(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 16.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Dhiran Mandali Ltd. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Here-In-After Referred To As Ld. Cit(Appeals)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred By Without Considering The Facts, Legal Cases & Documents Submitted By The Appellant. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of The A.O Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The I.T Act 1961 Which Is Incomplete & Also Bad On Facts.

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnataka [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC). Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Na vs. Arivs.Shri Lallubhai Morarbhai Patel, Navsari

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

ITA 122/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Lallubhai Morabhai Patel, Laxmi Trading Co. 3, Navsari, Room No.206, Vs Naher Chokdi, At & P.O 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Rumla, Navsari-396060 Charpool, Navsari-396445 Pan No.Aazpp 9895 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 44A

correct / modify the order. Aggrieved by the said 4 Bharatbhai M Baldha direction of NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before Tribunal, both the parties have made their respective submissions, as recorded above. The main grievance of Revenue is that after

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

India and several other countries. Thus, the grounds taken by assessee is not tenable and dismissed. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

ACIT CC-18 vs. Neena Hardeep Singh

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1421/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

submitting that Courts/ Tribunals have held that an assessee can raise additional grounds/ claims in cross objection filed in response to the Departmental appeal before the Tribunal, provided facts are on record:  CIT vs Silver Line: 383 ITR 455 (Del)  CIT vs K Venkatesh Dutt: 319 ITR 331 (Kar)  DCIT

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai vs. Mesers Metex Engineers, Bhilai

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. 5. Now, aggrieved by the order of Ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 1: Addition of Rs.5, 50,000/- on account of addition to Partners’ Capital Account by invoking Section 68: 6. At the outset

Mesers Metex Engineers, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. 5. Now, aggrieved by the order of Ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 1: Addition of Rs.5, 50,000/- on account of addition to Partners’ Capital Account by invoking Section 68: 6. At the outset

M/S Tricon Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2985/MUM/2022[2020-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2020-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S Tricon Global Services Dy. Cit, Cpc Private Limited, Bengaluru-560100 701, Dlh Park, S.V. Road, Off Vs. Mtnl, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aabco 0321 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 40Section 90(2)

ground is dismissed. not applicable. Therefore this ground is dismissed. not applicable. Therefore this ground is dismissed.” 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Shri. Rakesh Natwarlal Thakkar, Thane vs. DCIT CC-1 Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7781/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Rakesh Natwarlal Thakkar, Dcit Central Circle-1, 13/5Th Floor, Kashima Co-Op 6Th Floor, Room No. 10, Vs. Society, Opp. Damani Estate, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, Lbs Marg, Thane (West), Road, No. 16-Z, Pin – 400602 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604 Pan No. Aanpt 8579 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, Cit–Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT–DR
Section 132

issue in dispute, the assessee is in appeal the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. before the Tribunal

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

reached the stage of finality as the Department has not accepted the decision of the learned CIT(A) and has preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, at this stage, the interest on refund should not be taxed. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

reached the stage of finality as the Department has not accepted the decision of the learned CIT(A) and has preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, at this stage, the interest on refund should not be taxed. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised

Scb Steel P.Ltd (Earlier Known As Cbs Energy Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 166/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

parte to confirm the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel at the threshold pointed out that the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte

Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2563/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsteel Authority Of India Vs. Acit Ltd., Taxation Dept., Range – 9 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan No. Aaacs 7062 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

time of hearing of appeal.” 5. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that this is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal arising from the order of CIT(A) dated 17.01.2018 in Appeal No.138/17-18. He submitted that the Department and the assessee had come in appeal before