← 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

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 865/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

disallowance amounting to Rs 2,37,08,703 on claim u/s 80IA stands upheld.” 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the assessee has not submitted Form 10CCB along with return of income

Triway Container Freight Station P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowances for both assessment years. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. By reiterating the submissions as made before the authorities below, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that ... assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 6 I.T.A. Nos. 254 & 255/Chny/19 8. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company had reserve/surplus to the tune of almost 15 crores

Triway Container Freight Station P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowances for both assessment years. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. By reiterating the submissions as made before the authorities below, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that ... assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 6 I.T.A. Nos. 254 & 255/Chny/19 8. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company had reserve/surplus to the tune of almost 15 crores

Craftsman Automation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 652/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.652/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.N.ArjunrajFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

transaction, since :- 3 -: unrelated parties in similar circumstances would not extend/avail any interest free loan / advance”. 2.2 Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2.3 We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.Counsel for the assessee ... simpliciter relying the decision of the Tribunal in the earlier years, dismissed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.3 At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that neither the AO nor the DRP has considered this issue independently

Subrahmanyam Jagarlamudi, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 414/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Subrahmanyam Vs. Income Tax Officer Jagarlamudi, Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Acxpj5454G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd.Fazal Revenue By: Shri Naveen Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 28/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,48,15,901/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income.

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd.FazalFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that despite adjournment letters filed before the learned CIT (A) through mail, the learned

Panineeys Sanskrit Colleges Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 220/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Panineeya Sanskrit Vs. Ito(Exemptions)-3 College Trust Aaykar Bhawan Sy.No.103, Basheerbagh Vivekananda Nagar Hyderabad-500 004 Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad-500 060

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 120Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment after verification of the issues in accordance with law. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the revision order dated 30.03.2021 passed

Puli Chakrapani Reddy, Chittoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 944/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Shri Rama Kanta Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Chakrapani Puli Vs. Ito,Ward-1(1) No.2-1593/10, Near Sbi Tilak Road B.V.Reddy Colony Branch, K.T.Road Pileru, Chittoor District Tirupati-517 507 Andhra Pradesh-517 214

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

friend. He however deleted the other additions. 5. Aggrieved with such part relief granted by the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds. 1. The order of the learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed

Hemakumar Reddy Pouttiakula, Chittoor vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1622/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Shri Rama Kanta Panda

For Appellant: Ms. S.Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income as “income from other sources”. 4 Pouttiakula Hemakumar Reddy 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds. The Learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is not legally correct and proper in; Liquor Business: The commissioner

Sunny Park Apartment Owners Association, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 567/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 250

instant appeals within statutory time limit. I, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2014-15: “For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

Sunny Park Apartment Owners Association, Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 566/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 250

instant appeals within statutory time limit. I, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year 2014-15: “For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

Shashikala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Shashikala Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(1) Pan:Aaspg1838N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.3.2022 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 26.07.2017 For A.Y 2017-18 Admitting Income From House Property & Other Sources At Rs.3,66,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Issues On Which The Selection Was Made Was “Large Value Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period As Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 9.8.2018 Was Issued & Served Electronically On The Assessee As Well As Page 1 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

order after due verification of the source of cash deposit. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned Pr.CIT the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1.The Learned Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad (Pr. CIT) erred in facts and law while passing

Egwood Boards and Panels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 216/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Egwood Boards & Panels Vs. Acit-3(1) Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan 6-3-679, 1St Floor Basher Bagh Elite Plaza, Punjagutta Hyderabad Hyderabad-500 082

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.Murali Mohan, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

upheld and the ground no.2 is dismissed accordingly. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds 1. The CIT (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition made by the learned assessing officer, i.e., disallowing interest paid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(3), Hyderabad vs. Mechineni Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 56/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2015-16 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Mechineni Projects (P) Central Circle 3(3) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecp4421H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.9.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee, A Company (Formerly Known As Pbr Projects Pvt. Ltd) Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Residential & Commercial Buildings, Originally Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Admitting A Total Income Of Rs.1,16,090/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Wase Conducted In M/S. Raghuram & Trishala Group On 21.11.2017 & Warrant In The Case Of M/S. Mechineni Projects (P) Ltd I.E., The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 132Section 153A

deleted and the relevant grounds are allowed”. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT (A) erred both in law and facts of the case in allowing relief

Raja Gopal Reddy Goli, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Raja Gopal Reddy Goli Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(5) Pan:Bbwpg4389J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6.6.2019 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That There Is Error In The Order U/S 143(3) Dated 19.12.2017 3. The Ld. Pr. Cit Ought To Have Considered The Facts That The Assessing Officer While Completing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Considered All The Facts & Circumstances & Arrived At The Total Income. 4. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Is Erroneous & Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 5. Any Other Ground That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.“ Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Gopal Reddy Goli 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned Pr. CIT the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the office note, that was inadvertently supplied to the assessee along with

M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 988/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

book profits towards provision for bad debts. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), both the revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the tax effect of the appeal of the revenue is less than ... filed by the revenue in ITA No.1029/Bang/2022 is dismissed on the ground that the same is below the monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal as per the above circular. 6. We will now take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No.988/Bang/2022 in which the assessee has raised

Kantharajapura Ramaiah Ananthababu, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 263

accept the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to set aside the order passed u/s 143(3). Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has given his liquor license under the trade name ‘Vijayalakshmi Wines’ to the partnership firm

M/S. Sneha Kinetic Power Projects Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1054/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(2)Section 234B

assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds:- “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1029/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

book profits towards provision for bad debts. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), both the revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the tax effect of the appeal of the revenue is less than ... filed by the revenue in ITA No.1029/Bang/2022 is dismissed on the ground that the same is below the monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal as per the above circular. 6. We will now take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No.988/Bang/2022 in which the assessee has raised

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Aggrieved by the final order of assessment passed in pursuant to the directions of the DRP the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.224/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 31 7. The ld. AR submitted that the issue has been already considered by the coordinate bench

Crawley & Ray Founders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Banlaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Aggrieved by the said disallowances assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel has placed on record a synopsis and paper book containing 41 pages. On the addition in respect of gratuity contribution