← 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

Rimmalpudi Bhaskara Pattabhi Ramana Choudary, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, five appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 48/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.46 To 67/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) Rimmalpudi Bhaskara Pattabhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramana Choudary, Tds, Ward-1, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan: Afcpr 2275 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 31/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 200ASection 234E

without discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before me, at the outset, it is the contention of the Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] that the enabling provision for computation

Rimmalpudi Bhaskara Pattabhi Ramana Choudary, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, five appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 47/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.46 To 67/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) Rimmalpudi Bhaskara Pattabhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramana Choudary, Tds, Ward-1, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan: Afcpr 2275 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 31/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 200ASection 234E

without discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before me, at the outset, it is the contention of the Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] that the enabling provision for computation

Rimmalpudi Bhaskara Pattabhi Ramana Choudary, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, five appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 46/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.46 To 67/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) Rimmalpudi Bhaskara Pattabhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramana Choudary, Tds, Ward-1, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan: Afcpr 2275 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 31/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 200ASection 234E

without discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before me, at the outset, it is the contention of the Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] that the enabling provision for computation

Vanga Jain Babu, Devarapalli vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

more opportunity to the assessee before passing the consequential order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised Five grounds of appeal wherein the crux of the issue is with respect to treating the capital gains

Anup A. Shah, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/RJT/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

relevant to the Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. At the outset we note that there was delay of 30 days in filling the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR for the assessee before us explained the A.Y. 2005-06 2 reason for such delay by stating that the employee

Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navasari

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

ITA 263/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.263/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry Income Tax Officer, 130, Kumbhar Faliya, Via Ward-5, Navsari Vs Satem, Tal: Navsari, Dist. Navsari-396466 Pan No: Ammpm 4411 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sujesh C Suratwala, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31.03.2023 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 05.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.09.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Suresshbhai S Mistry “1. The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Nfac/Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Addition To The Total Income Of The Assessee Which Is Primarily Agriculture Inn Nature & In Fact Exempted To Tax

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

that cash deposit are only Rs.5,90,760/- and to restrict the addition to that extent only. Further, aggrieved the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On perusal of record shows that impugned order passed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) on 05.05.2022, however, the present appeal filed ... filing of assessees appeal is not condone. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that there is no deliberate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and same may be condoned and appeal of assessee was heard on merit. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental-Representative (Ld.Sr

North Bihar Power Distrubution Co. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar,FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)

days. However, from perusal of the records, we find that the impugned order of Ld. Pr.CIT is dated 31.03.2022. The present appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 01.06.2022. Time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 30.05.2022. Considering these two dates there

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 96/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2019 & 97/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) Pilli Raja Raghavendra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.45-57-10/1/1 Central Circle-2 Narasimha Nagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bpfpp8326B] (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 : 21.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 29.03.2023 : Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts ... corroborative evidence of a gift of Rs.50,000/- received from the father of the assessee. 12. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and contended that the deposits of Rs.1,98,000/- were made on various dates out of his earnings and also from agricultural income

Sudhir Bhupendra Desai, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), Surat

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

ITA 92/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

gain on sale of immovable property. The ignorance of law is an untenable plea. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr DR) for the Revenue

Thakordas Parekh & Sons, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 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 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

Section 115BBE is applicable from 01.04.2017. Hence, tax rate prescribed under section 115BBE will be applicable. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and learned Senior Departmental Representative

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat vs. M/S. D.Khushalbhai Jewellers, Surat

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 493/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

addition of Rs. 3.71 crore was upheld, however, the addition of Rs. 5.10 crore was deleted vide order dated 17/01/2017. No further appeal before the Tribunal was filed by the assessee in quantum assessments. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, ACIT Vs M/s D. Khushalbhai Jewellers initiated penalty ... such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire penalty. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submissions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue and the ACIT

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 1(3), Surat vs. M/S. D.Khushalbhai Jewellers, Surat

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

addition of Rs. 3.71 crore was upheld, however, the addition of Rs. 5.10 crore was deleted vide order dated 17/01/2017. No further appeal before the Tribunal was filed by the assessee in quantum assessments. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, ACIT Vs M/s D. Khushalbhai Jewellers initiated penalty ... such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire penalty. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submissions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue and the ACIT

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Patna vs. Bijendra Memorial Society, Patna

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.3/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit (Exemption), Circle-Patna........……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. Bijendra Memorial Society….....….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent 404 Shyam Centre, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. [Pan:Aabtb1511G] Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 29, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 28.08.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Additions Of Disallowances Towards The Salary/Remuneration Of Rs. 17,40,000/- & Rs.12,60,000/- Paid To Treasurer & Secretary Of The Trust & Rs.3,00,000/- To Shri Kala Choudhary For Hiring Of Bus & Rs.8,40,000/- For Hostel Building Rent To M/S Aadya Bhasker Enterprises Private Limited From The Income Of Trust Which Were Found Excessive & Unreasonable Under Sub-Section (3) Of Section 13 Of The

Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

even otherwise, the disputed tax amount involved in this appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Department for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR even could not rebut the aforesaid contention of the ld. AR. In view of this, we do not find

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Acacia Project Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 440/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usacit Vs. M/S. Unitech Acacia Projects Circle – 27(1) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 6-Community Centre Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaacu 9453 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2023

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 30.10.2019 (Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-9/10055/2019-20) deleted the penalty. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) is justified

Brightpoint India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8992/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Partho Das Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

payment amount also does not match with the expense bills. The CIT(A) thus denied relief sought. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions. It is the case of the assessee that it is a subsidiary company of Brightpoint Holdings

DCIT, CC-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 813/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.” 5. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The imposition of penalty of Rs.3,59,22,290/- @ 10% of the undisclosed income is in issue. As pointed out on behalf

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

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

ITA 7/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

Rs.66,31,375/-. Since the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. On the facts and circumstances

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

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

ITA 6/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

Rs.66,31,375/-. Since the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. On the facts and circumstances

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

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

ITA 5/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

Rs.66,31,375/-. Since the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. On the facts and circumstances

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

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

ITA 4/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

Rs.66,31,375/-. Since the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. On the facts and circumstances