← 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

Everyeady Spinning Mills Private Limited, Triupur vs. ACIT, Central Cricle 3, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2144/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2206, 2204 & 2207/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250

accepted having entered into bogus purchase transactions which substantiates that the assessee has raised bogus sales invoices. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee raised various grounds contending the addition made on merits. The assessee also raised additional ground vide

Moorthy Ramasubramanian, Tuticorin vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tirnelveli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2007/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)

Rs.6,00,000 made by the AO is upheld. Consequently, the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed. 4. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the ld.AR has submitted that the assessment order is alleged to be bad in law, without jurisdiction, and contrary to principles of equity

Seema Pappu Yadav, Andheri West vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5483/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 148Section 250

made any strong objection for condoning the delay in filing appeal. So, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the matter is taken for adjudication. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. The Ld.AR argued and stated that

Ashish Girish Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5328/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Thus, vide order dated 24/03/2025, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. 8. During the course of hearing Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee reiterated the submissions

Anil Kumar Gang, Jodhpur vs. ITO 3(1) Jodhpur, Jodhpur

ITA 5313/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth
Section 143(1)Section 154

enforced coercively.‖ 7. Being aggrieved, by the above order passed by the Learned CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. 8. It is admitted position that the income offered to tax by the Assessee has been accepted

M/S. Sai Builders and Developers, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-27, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4520/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Sai Builders & Developers. B12, Ashiana, Plot No.15, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan/Gir No: Abbfs0092C (Appellant) Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-27. It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400703. (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Shashank Mehta Shri Vivek Perampurna, Cit-Dr 07.01.2026 28.01.2026 Order Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘Act') By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-27 Dated 16.03.2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Cit, Mumbai-27 Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify, Amend Or Substitute All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal." 1

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 263

appeal could be filed against the order of the PCIT before the ITAT and not CIT(A). Thereafter, the appellant has filed appeal before the Tribunal on 15.07.2025 after a delay of 1114 days. 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed affidavit of the partner of the assessee ... Representative (Id. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that there was inordinate delay in filling appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has not been able to establish sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard

Deliverhealth Services Private Limited (Earlier Known As Transcend Mt Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Delhi

ITA 3339/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sahni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘E’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Munjal Holdings, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5834/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

High court in the writ petition filed by the assessee. ACIT Vs. Munjal Holdings 4. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

Income Tax Officer(E) Ward- 2(4), New Delhi, Civic Centre New Delhi vs. Prakash Sewa Trust, Paschim Vihar

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

held that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. 4. Against the said order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the issue is not of break in charitable

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1348/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 92C

account of transfer pricing adjustments as well as disallowance out of various expenses. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred

Naveen Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

only one-third share of the property value, since the property was purchased by three co-purchasers. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising both legal as well as merit grounds. The principal contentions of the learned Authorised Representative (AR) is legal ground that invalid reopening

Manish Agarwal, Ballygunge vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.16/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 201-12 Manish Agarwal……….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 35A, Tirumala Apartment, Ballygunge Park, Kol- 700019. [Pan: Acdpa1176E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi......…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sunit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 28.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee Group On 23.10.2019. Pursuant To The Said Search, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Calling Upon The Assessee To File Its Return Of Income For Six Assessment Years Preceding The Year Of Search. In Response To The Notice Under Section 153A, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2011–12, Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,95,180/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Several Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee, Which

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions made by the AO. 4. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds. Apart from challenging the additions on merits, the assessee raised a pure legal ground, contending that the assessment framed under

Anjaneya Ispat Limited, Jamshedpur vs. CIT(A), Jamshedpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/RAN/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Cit(A), Jamshedpur.………….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 18.01.2019 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Instant Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2019 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Whereby The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At ₹37,00,000, As Against The Income Originally Assessed. Consequent To The Said Appellate Order, The Assessing Officer Initiated Penalty Proceedings & Passed An Order Dated 18.01.2019 Under Section 270A(1)(C) Of The Act, Imposing A Penalty Of ₹27,00,000, Being 200% Of The Tax Alleged To Be Evaded, On The Addition Of ₹37,00,000. I.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd

Section 250Section 270A(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

addition of ₹37,00,000. I.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 M/s Anjeneya Ispat Ltd 3. Aggrieved by the levy of penalty, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty imposed is purely consequential to the quantum addition of ₹37,00,000.On an identical

M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, Circele-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

Section 10(23)Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 40Section 69Section 69C

clerical error, without issuing any notice to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the sustenance of additions comprising (i) CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition by making an addition of ₹4,26,23,878 over

Amardeep Chaudhary, Panchkula, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Panchkula, Panchkula Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.750/Chd/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Amardeep Chaudhary Ito Ward 1 Panchkula बनाम/ Vs. House No. 153, Sector-2, Ito Ward-1, Panchkula, Panchkula, Haryana - 134112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakpc-3432-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) Appellant By ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06- 01-2026

For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 23Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

finally heard AMD disposed off. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 113 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 ... sustained the addition made by the lower authority. Against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During proceedings before us, ld. Counsel for the Assessee again cited the case laws of ‘CIT vs Ghanshyam’ (supra) and argued that

Chaman Lal, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

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

ITA 489/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: the National Faceless Appeals Centre-Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and the appeal is dismissed and stated that in the absence of any document/ evidence, no separate reasons needs to be recorded by the appellate authority for affirming the order of A.O. and decided that "It is evident that the appellant during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings failed to furnish documentary evidences/ proper explanation in support of his contention, so in view of aforesaid facts hence the

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kumar, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

dismissed the grounds of appeal, thereby sustaining the assessment order. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the non- compliance during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings

Income Tax Offier, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. Balpreet Singh, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1022/CHANDI/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Balpreet Singh, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 251Section 69A

appeal was thus treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing The Ld. DR supported the assessment order and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside

Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 80G

frame a fresh assessment on the above issues. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR, before us, submitted that the assessment was completed after detailed scrutiny and due inquiry on the issues of deduction claimed

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Favourite Cloth Merchants Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 391/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 29.12.2023. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi erred in restrict the addition

Aparna Girish Hebbani, Australia vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5061/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Aparna Girish Hebbani Income Tax Officer, 21, Hallow Crescent, Ward – 2(2)(1), Augustine Heights, Queensland, Vs. Mumbai Australia (Pan : Ahhph4844H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat & Shri Raj Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 56, Mumbai Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061197750(1), Dated 20.02.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.01.2022 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat and Shri Raj Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

Aparna Girish Hebbani AY 2019-20 in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT 73 Taxman 3 (SC). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts narrated above. We have heard both the parties and perused the material