← 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

Balajee Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 236/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246Section 250

order. 2. At the outset, it is noted from the record that there is a delay of 16 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeals, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] drawn our attention to the petition filed ... view, this is a fit case for condoning the delay and hence we hereby condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are identical

Vijay Spinning Mills Limited, Krishna District vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 181/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 5-111-10, Vsm Quarters Income Tax Ganguru, Penamaluru Mandal Circle-1(1) Krishna Dist. Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacv7518B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 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 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044219637(1) Dated 28.07.2022 Arising Out Of The Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

upheld the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Hon’ble CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income

Andhra Pradesh State Certification Authority(Formerly Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency), Guntur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to the delay, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the petition filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, wherein the reasons were explained ... view, this is a fit case for condoning the delay and hence we hereby condone the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying activities related

Pilli Nooka Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, . Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 99/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1,23,450/-. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 12 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam 1. The order ... preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 26. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts

Pilli Nooka Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, . Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 98/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1,23,450/-. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 12 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam 1. The order ... preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 26. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts

Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 103/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1,23,450/-. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 12 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam 1. The order ... preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 26. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts

Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 102/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1,23,450/-. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 12 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam 1. The order ... preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 26. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts

Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 101/VIZ/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1,23,450/-. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 12 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam 1. The order ... preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 26. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts

Pilli Nooka Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, . Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A

ITA 100/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019 To 103/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt.Pilli Sujatha Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajopp0031F] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019 To 100/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14) Pilli Nooka Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Income Tax Narasimha Nagar Central Circle-2 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahipp 3381L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.MurthyNaik,CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1,23,450/-. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 12 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam 1. The order ... preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 26. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sankari, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

ITA 22/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

upheld the findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR before us submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim

Maharashtra Forge Fitting, Mumbai vs. ITO- 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 144Section 148

notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and hence he confirmed the above said addition. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not furnish relevant details before the Assessing Officer as well as before

Bhavesh Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-No-27(1), Mumbai

ITA 152/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. Hakani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. A.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

further course of action; that thereafter the assessee sent a reminder to his chartered accountant who has suggested in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal which was ultimately filed on 17.01.2023. 2. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6916/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee filed an affidavit

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6915/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee filed an affidavit

New Horizon Commercial Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, Jhandewalan Extension

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1606/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

with the order of the Assessing Officer and Ground No. 6 of the appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and ground No. 2 and 2.1 relate thereto. 7. Ld. AR submitted that the firm was dissolved on 06.09.2015 w.e.f. 07.09.2015 vide dissolution ... filed for AY 2016-17. Accordingly, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is dismissed.” 4 10.1 Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and ground No. 1 relates thereto. 10.2 Before us, the Ld. AR did not advance any arguments in order to refute the findings

Ashok Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7078/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Ashok Kumar Sharma, Vs Ito, 4306, Sec-B-5 & 6, Ward-24(4), New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Akzps3781M Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 68

whereby the assessee got relief of INR 8,91,658/-. 6. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Apropos to Grounds of appeal, Ld. Sr. DR supported assessment order and submitted that there was no supporting evidences and the assessing

Chandra Prabha, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1347/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Kanungo, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 263Section 50CSection 55ASection 64

Long Term Capital Gains on sale of impugned agricultural land situated at Modinagar. 6. Aggrieved by the revisional action, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal challenging the revisional action. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the revisional order and the re-assessment order. We have also

Baba Naya Ram Dass Gaushala, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2018[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : N.A.] Baba Naya Ram Dass Vs Cit(E), Gaushala, Vpo-Manesar, Chandigarh. Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan-Aabab1337M Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri P.Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2023

Section 80G

drawing adverse conclusion about the accounts of assessee society. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(Exemption), the assessee has preferred the instant appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Apropos to Grounds of appeal, Ld. CIT DR submitted that Ld.CIT(Exemption) has given categorical finding on fact regarding activity

Bina Fashions N Food Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4732/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sweety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

claim out of foreign travel expenses of the directors following the reasonings of the preceding AY. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee came up in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the very outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee is covered by the decision of the Tribunal ... purview of issuance of notice in terms of the provision under section 153C of the Act. On appeal: Held accordingly, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the notice issued to the assessee under section 153C of the Act for the assessment year

Vishnu Pareek, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), Jaipur

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

ITA 292/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

also dismissed at the admission stage.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred this appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as raised by the assessee as reiterated here in above para 2. To support the various grounds so raised ... disallowed by AO for Assessment Year 1993-94 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—Against order of Commissioner, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal—Tribunal restored matter back to file of AO for Assessment Year 1993-94—AO passed order allowing claim under that section