← 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

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4385/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

deposited in bank. Agg secondly as cash deposited in bank. Aggrieved, with the additions rieved, with the additions sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 In the appeals before

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4384/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

deposited in bank. Agg secondly as cash deposited in bank. Aggrieved, with the additions rieved, with the additions sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 In the appeals before

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4383/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

deposited in bank. Agg secondly as cash deposited in bank. Aggrieved, with the additions rieved, with the additions sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 In the appeals before

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4382/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

deposited in bank. Agg secondly as cash deposited in bank. Aggrieved, with the additions rieved, with the additions sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 In the appeals before

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4381/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

deposited in bank. Agg secondly as cash deposited in bank. Aggrieved, with the additions rieved, with the additions sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 In the appeals before

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed and of Assessee is allowed

ITA 5744/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.” 6. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds :- “On the facts and circumstances of the case the order 1. passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed and of Assessee is allowed

ITA 5743/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.” 6. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds :- “On the facts and circumstances of the case the order 1. passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both

Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed and of Assessee is allowed

ITA 5578/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.” 6. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds :- “On the facts and circumstances of the case the order 1. passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both

Blp Vayu (Project-1) P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4895/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

particular issue of issuance of shares at huge premium. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Pr.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal agitating the assumption of supervisory jurisdiction usurped by the Pr.CIT as well consequential order passed under Section

Sushila Goyal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 22(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsushila Goyal Vs. Ito Flat No.4, Rr Apartments Ward – 22(3), 3-4, Mangalpuri, Mehrauli New Delhi New Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Ajspg 2559 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Gandhi, C.A. Revenue By Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 29.01.2019 in Appeal No.10367/18-19 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, has erred both

Sri Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Guntur

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

ITA 116/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.113/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Nagarjuna Cultural Centre Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.5-21-34, 2/14, Brodipet (Exemptions) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaatn4932A] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2023 & 115/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Polisetty Somasundaram Charities D.No.20-1-23, Sambasivapet 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan :Aaatp6658D] Income Tax Officer Vs. (Exemptions) Polisetty Somasundaram & Nagaratnamma Charities Guntur D.No.8-24-31, Mangalagiri Road Guntur [Pan :Aaatp2947H] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.116/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Sri Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.8-24-31 (Exemptions) Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aalts2354L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

furnish mandatory information and since the case is to be decided in time bound manner. 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

Polisetty Somasundaram& Nagaratnamma Charities, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Guntur

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

ITA 115/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.113/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Nagarjuna Cultural Centre Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.5-21-34, 2/14, Brodipet (Exemptions) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaatn4932A] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2023 & 115/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Polisetty Somasundaram Charities D.No.20-1-23, Sambasivapet 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan :Aaatp6658D] Income Tax Officer Vs. (Exemptions) Polisetty Somasundaram & Nagaratnamma Charities Guntur D.No.8-24-31, Mangalagiri Road Guntur [Pan :Aaatp2947H] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.116/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Sri Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.8-24-31 (Exemptions) Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aalts2354L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

furnish mandatory information and since the case is to be decided in time bound manner. 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

Polisetty Somasunddaram Charities, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Guntur

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

ITA 114/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.113/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Nagarjuna Cultural Centre Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.5-21-34, 2/14, Brodipet (Exemptions) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaatn4932A] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2023 & 115/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Polisetty Somasundaram Charities D.No.20-1-23, Sambasivapet 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan :Aaatp6658D] Income Tax Officer Vs. (Exemptions) Polisetty Somasundaram & Nagaratnamma Charities Guntur D.No.8-24-31, Mangalagiri Road Guntur [Pan :Aaatp2947H] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.116/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :-Na-) Sri Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.8-24-31 (Exemptions) Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aalts2354L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

furnish mandatory information and since the case is to be decided in time bound manner. 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

Shri Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 205/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 Pan No: Adkpk 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

addition in question would never have come to light, if the case was not selected for scrutiny. Further, aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and learned Senior Departmental Representative

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S Vapi Green Enviro Ltd., Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set aside and disposed of for statistical purposes

ITA 153/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.152 & 153/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vapi Circle, Vs. M/S. Vapi Green Enviro Ltd., 135, 1St Floor, Via House, Gidc, Vapi. Char Rasta, Vapi – 396195. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacv8289P Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri Aarti Shah, Ar 19/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023

Section 143(3)Section 26

penalty charges were not claimed as deduction. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) and Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and Ld. Authorized

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S Vapi Green Enviro Ltd., Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set aside and disposed of for statistical purposes

ITA 152/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.152 & 153/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vapi Circle, Vs. M/S. Vapi Green Enviro Ltd., 135, 1St Floor, Via House, Gidc, Vapi. Char Rasta, Vapi – 396195. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacv8289P Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri Aarti Shah, Ar 19/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023

Section 143(3)Section 26

penalty charges were not claimed as deduction. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) and Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and Ld. Authorized

Shree Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 12/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik I.T.O., (Prop. Of M/S Shivbhole Services), Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. House No. 1, Desai Faliyu, At Po Surat. Vaktana, Tal, Choryasi Via Sachin, Surat-394230. Pan No. Agppn 5994 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 69A

about passing the order against the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). On coming to know, the assessee immediately took step for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate for the reasons that ... bank of assessee. On such observation, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assesse has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 8. I have heard the submissions of ld. AR of the assessee and the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and have perused

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Employees Co-Op Credit Society, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 765/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rashtriya Chemicals & बिधम/ The Ito, Ward-27(3)(1) Fertilisers Employees’ Co- Room No. 442, 4Th Floor, Vs. Op. Credit Society Tower No. 6, Vashi Type-1A/21 481/484, Railway Station Chembur, Mumbai-400074. Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 4000703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar1076N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Thosar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Allowing The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.99,59,604/-. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Credit Co- Operative Society Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. & The Ao Noted That The Assessee Is A Co-

For Appellant: Shri Mayank ThosarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

paras 6 and 7 of the CIT (A)‟s order are relevant in this regard. Aggrieved with the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal with the present appeal. 4. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR for the Revenue submitted that the order of the CIT (A) should

Arun I. Keswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 727/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

year under consideration, the assessee has returned loan back by issuing cheque and has received cash in return. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment for the year under consideration was reopened based on the search

C & C Constructions Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1544/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1543 & 1544/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs. Dcit 74, Hemkunt Colony, Central Circle – 19 New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc 4543 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sibtain Raza, A.R. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-33/10113/2017-18 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: ITA Nos.1543 & 1544/Del/22 C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs DCIT 3 1. “That on the facts and circumstances