← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur vs. Jai Govind Shukla, Kanpur

The Appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 724/LKW/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2024-25 The Income Tax Officer V. Jai Govind Shukla Ward 1 (2)(1) Shop No.6,7, Panki Power House Kanpur Market, Panki Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Axxps3440G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. Respondent By: None O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2024-25. 2.0 None Was Present On Behalf Of The Respondent-Assessee When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing Nor Was Any Adjournment Application Moved In This Regard. However, Looking Into The Facts Of The Case, I Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Respondent-Assessee.

For Respondent: None

respondent-assessee. 3.0 It is noticed that the tax effect involved in this appeal is below the fiscal limit for filing of appeals before the Tribunal by the Income Tax Department. The monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the Department as per CBDT ITA No.724/LKW/2025 Page

Mrs. Ranjana, Mrizapur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

appeal. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 62 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 01.08.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit

M.K. Wood Trading Corporation, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 504/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

deleted. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 273 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), that the deponent had contacted the Counsel to enquire about the filing of appeal before the Tribunal and that in view of these facts, the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. He prayed that

Santosh Kumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi/ITO-1(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 498/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Kumar Gupta V. The Assessment Unit (Nfac) 624 61, Chinhat Ito 1(4), Lucknow Faizabad Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahspg3013E (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Mahendra Kumar, Fca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.05.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Carrying On The Business Of Mobiles, Electrical & Electronic Goods. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.15,60,000/- During The Demonetization Period (From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016) In His Four Different Bank Accounts Bearing A/C Nos.20050580560 & 31121736248, Maintained With State Bank Of India, Chinhat Branch, Lucknow, A/C No.1840210572, Maintained With Central Bank Of India

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 362 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 28.07.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate, stating therein that ... subjected to Hemodialysis twice a week for a long period and, therefore, the assessee could not give proper attention towards filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The prayer of the Ld. A.R. was that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it was beyond

Shubhanshu Agarwal, Bahraich vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 458/LKW/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Shubhanshu Agarwal V. The Ito-1 C/O Shree Shyam Fertilizers Bahraich Shiv Nagar Bahraich (U/P) Tan/Pan:Bbhpa5931M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 27 days in filing the ITA No.458/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 6 appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee, stating

Income Tax Officer, Murshidabad vs. Chunakhali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Limited, Murshidabad

ITA 803/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 250

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Dipankar Dutta, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 54(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2300/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2300/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Dipankar Dutta,…………………….………...……Appellant 115, Sita Nath Bose Bye Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106, W.B. [Pan:Acypd1204F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-54(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Central Revenue Building, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.11,44,817/- are hereby confirmed”. . 3 Dipankar Dutta 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded before the Bench that the assessee uploaded various details and documents

Rajkumari Dhanuka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 32(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2260/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2260/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Rajkumari Dhanuka,…………….………….…Appellant 113, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Adupd7020N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-32(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

order under section 250 of the Act dismissing the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) ought to have

M/S. Miravelle Tradecomm Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1946/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1946/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 M/S. Mirabelle Tradecomm Pvt. Limited,.……Appellant 85, Netaji Subhas Road, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcm7418A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 68

cash credit of Rs.8,00,000/-, the grounds of appeal are not tenable. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has taken unsecured loan and the same was refunded

Ashok Prasad Gupta, North Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1848/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1848/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ashok Prasad Gupta,………………………….…Appellant C/O. Daspara C.S. Shop, Daspara B.O., Chopra, North Dinajpur-733207, W.B. [Pan:Bfepg3955G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-2(4), Raiganj, Income Tax Office, Karnajora, Rajganj-733130, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A(1)

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 200 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no fault or in action on his part in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay ... Rs.8,28,470/- is to be added to the total returned income of the assessee”. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. Assessing Officer wrongly estimated the business income

Century Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 1324/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1324/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited,.……..…Appellant 10B, Sikdar Para Street, Jorasanko, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aabcc0694E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Nikhil Sharme, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessing Officer and relief allowed in part. 3 Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee filed all the documents as required, but the ld. Assessing Officer passed the impugned

Aadarsh Laddha, Legal Heir of Kailash Chand Laddha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1013/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Aadarsh Laddha,………………….………...……Appellant (Legal Heir Of Kailash Chand Laddha) 31, Giri Babu Lane, Kolkata-700012, W.B. [Pan:Abapl2499R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-37(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Sidhharth Kejriwal, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)

Assessing Officer are confirmed and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that similar issue has been taken up by the ITAT, ‘E’ Bench, Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Hindusthan National Glass and Industrieslimited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 338/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 14ASection 250

application seeking condonation of delay. The reasons mentioned are that the ASR was submitted for approval of the PCIT for filing the appeal before the Tribunal but was submitted without record and the assessment order, the PCIT asking for clarification on the ASR, the ASR being re-submitted, necessary hard ... relevant record was found on 26/12/2023. Therefore, it has been requested to condone the delay of 140 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal for the sake of substantial justice. On going through the application, we are satisfied that the Revenue had sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay

ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 665/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Revenue had sufficient cause for the delay, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 664/KOL/2023: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that

I.T.O, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Salt Lake

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 664/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Revenue had sufficient cause for the delay, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: i. ITA No. 664/KOL/2023: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. We shall 1st take up the case for the assessment year 2013-14. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, the case was heard with

Indu Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Circle 19(1), Mumbai, DCIT-CPC

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Indu Maheshwari Circle 19(1), Mumbai Shilpam, 20-A, Janpath Shyam Dcit-Cpc Nagar, Jaipur- 302019 Vs. Rajasthan (Pan: Abopm6419N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Atharv Mundra, Ca Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Bengaluru, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1071060919(1), Dated 10.12.2024 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center, By Dcit, Bengaluru (Cpc), U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.03.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 34,34,698/- Made By Ld. Ao Treating As Dividend U/S. 10 (34) Of It Act. However Appellant Earned Income From Mutual Fund Which Is Exempt U/S. 10(35) Of It Act. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The 2 Indu Maheshwari Ay 2017-18 Addition Of Rs. 3,79,894/- Made By Ld. Ao For Not Allowing Of Loss Of Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Atharv Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)

extent of Rs.10 lacs was allowed as exempted and the balance was subjected to tax, for which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Assessee has furnished all the documentary evidences to substantiate her claim and demonstrate evidently that the dividend earned is from mutual funds which

Alpha Charitable Trust, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 455/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms.Padmavathy Salpha Charitable Trust, Commissioner Of Income H. No.453, Ghosar Wadi, Tax (Exemption), Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, Income Bhandar Aali, Bhuigaon-West, Vs. Bhuigaon Bk, Bhuigaon B.O, Tax Office, Pmt Building, Thane. Shankar Seth Road, Pan – Aaita4259M Pune-411037. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke (Virtually Appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 12A

Exemption) on 30.12.2022, however, the present Appeal is filed only on 15.01.2025. Thus there is delay of 656 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Alpha Charitable Trust, Thane The appellant-Trust has filed application for condonation of delay, which is supported by the affidavit of Amis Michael Lopes, Managing

Insight Print Communications Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Insight Print Communications Pcit, Mumbai-4 Private Limited A-14, Synthofine Industrial Estate, Behind Virvani Industrial Estate, Vs. Dindoshi, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 (Pan: Aabci6530P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ca Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order By Ld. Pcit, Mumbai-4, Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1074740466(1), Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Unit, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, Dated 22.09.2022, For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant Prefers The Following Appeal Against The Order Dated 20/03/2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Pcit ") Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). Each Of The Grounds Is In Alternative & Without Prejudice To Other.

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

impugned assessment order so passed cannot be held to be bad in law. Assessee being aggrieved by the revisionary order is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The sole issue which led to the invocation of revisionary proceedings ... barred. In this regard, we note that the issue which forms the basis for the present revisionary proceedings for which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal is different form the issue which is pending before the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, ld. PCIT has exercised his jurisdiction well within

Schineler India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcitrg 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Schindler India Pvt Ltd Dcit Schindler House, Main Street, Range 15(3) (2) Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400076 (Pan: Aaecs1548J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal & Ms. Riddhi Maru, Cas Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2021-22/1040015716(1) Dated 22.02.2022 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2021-22/1039079646(1), Dated 25.01.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “Ground I. Legal Grounds

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal and Ms. Riddhi Maru, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

80JJAA amounting to Rs. 64,11,872/- was disallowed on the reason that assessee failed to submit relevant documents. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, aggrieved by the additions/disallowances so made. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that assessee and Central Board

J. M. Housing Limited, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central) Knp Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8248/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Registry has identified a delay of 195 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee, has pleaded that there was some confusion about the pendency of assessment proceedings and that only during