← 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

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

assessed income). 3 IT(TP)A No.3091/Bang/2018 M/s.United Spirits Limited. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising 9 grounds and various sub-grounds. The gist of the grounds and the issues involved in the same are detailed below

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs. 7.75 Crores for Assessment Year 2012-13. Aggrieved, both assessee as well as Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard ld. CIT-DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO in his assessment

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs. 7.75 Crores for Assessment Year 2012-13. Aggrieved, both assessee as well as Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard ld. CIT-DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO in his assessment

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs. 7.75 Crores for Assessment Year 2012-13. Aggrieved, both assessee as well as Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard ld. CIT-DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO in his assessment

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs. 7.75 Crores for Assessment Year 2012-13. Aggrieved, both assessee as well as Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard ld. CIT-DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO in his assessment

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

assessment after verification of the issues contained in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No.1 is general in nature. 6) Ground No. 2 is on the validity of the impugned order and we will first consider

Kundha Agri Farms, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 110/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.110/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Kundha Agri Farms, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 18, Old No. 80, Bazulla Road, Non Corporate Ward I(4), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aajfk7950J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 25.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Delayed By 694 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. Despite Defect Notice Was Issued Through Rpad, The Assessee Has Not Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. Since The Defect Was Not Rectified, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Not 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 694 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Despite defect notice was issued through RPAD, the assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit in filing ... appeal before the Tribunal. Since the defect was not rectified, the appeal filed by the assessee is not 2 I.T.A. No.110/Chny/21 maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced

DCIT, Corporate Cirlce - 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 704/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.704/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. A-30, D-5, Phase Ii, Corporate Circle – 3(2), Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 045. [Pan: Aaaca9284H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, Dated 09.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 78 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234C

accordingly quashed the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 12.03.2014. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 618/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 618/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17, Seetharam Nagar, Ward 1, Cuddalore 607 001. Cuddalore. [Pan:Aewpr9630P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, Dated 20.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 37 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. 4 I.T.A. No.618/Chny/20 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment in her appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there is no material available with the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 589/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

days. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating that the order of CIT(A) was received on 16.12.2019 and the appeals before the Tribunal have to be filed on or before 17.02.2020 but, the appeals were filed only on 23.03.2020 with a delay of 35 days ... assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The ld.AR for the assessee before us explained

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 588/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

days. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating that the order of CIT(A) was received on 16.12.2019 and the appeals before the Tribunal have to be filed on or before 17.02.2020 but, the appeals were filed only on 23.03.2020 with a delay of 35 days ... assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The ld.AR for the assessee before us explained

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 587/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

days. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating that the order of CIT(A) was received on 16.12.2019 and the appeals before the Tribunal have to be filed on or before 17.02.2020 but, the appeals were filed only on 23.03.2020 with a delay of 35 days ... assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The ld.AR for the assessee before us explained

Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1719/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Senthil Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

year. The objections of the assessee are rejected. The disallowance of prior period adjustment is seconded.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that a joint venture agreement was entered between TamilNadu Industrial Development Corporation, the assessee ie., TIDCO

Kalimuthu Harichandran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3498/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. After hearing rival contentions and going through the case records, it is noted that it is an admitted position that the assessee

Kalimuthu Harichandran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3497/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. After hearing rival contentions and going through the case records, it is noted that it is an admitted position that the assessee

Copco Engineering P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Range 1, Chennai

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

ITA 2399/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1299 & 2399/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Copco Engineering P. Ltd., The Acit / Acit(Osd), No.398, (Old No.766), Vs. Corporate Circle 1(2) / Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Range 1, Chennai– 600 010. Chennai. Pan: Aaacc 2483J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan,Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

also confirmed the action of the AO and not considered the explanation submitted by assessee properly. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Now before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee before AO and CIT(A) placed copy of sale agreement which discloses

Pocker Latheef, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1381/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1381/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pocker Latheef, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2 A, Arcot Road, Non Corporate Ward 8(1) Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 092. [Pan:Aexpl6605F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 26.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 13.06.2011 Admitting A Total Income Of ₹.1,71,541/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Following Due Procedure, The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

balance amount of ₹.91,34,664/- has been sustained on estimate basis. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the details of cash deposits which were made to pass the cheques issued by the assessee which

M/S Copco Engineering P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1299/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1299 & 2399/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Copco Engineering P. Ltd., The Acit / Acit(Osd), No.398, (Old No.766), Vs. Corporate Circle 1(2) / Poonamallee High Road, Corporate Range 1, Chennai– 600 010. Chennai. Pan: Aaacc 2483J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan,Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

also confirmed the action of the AO and not considered the explanation submitted by assessee properly. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Now before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee before AO and CIT(A) placed copy of sale agreement which discloses

Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Dcitcc-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 577/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Bombay High Court in yet another case of Gurinder Singh Bawa (2017)(70 taxmann.com 398) as under:- “5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that no assessment

Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Bombay High Court in yet another case of Gurinder Singh Bawa (2017)(70 taxmann.com 398) as under:- “5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that no assessment