← 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

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Express Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 3048/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3048/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Kathir, Advocate

fairly conceded the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.50,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable

Chakiat Agencies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 1 (3), Chennai

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

ITA 1552/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee in all the three years came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the only contention of the assessee in regard to disallowance of interest was that the AO has not examined the availability

Chakiat Agencies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 1 (3), Chennai

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

ITA 1551/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee in all the three years came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the only contention of the assessee in regard to disallowance of interest was that the AO has not examined the availability

Chakiat Agencies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 1 (3), Chennai

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

ITA 1550/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee in all the three years came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the only contention of the assessee in regard to disallowance of interest was that the AO has not examined the availability

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1691/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

action of the Assessing Officer on levying 10% TDS payment. 4. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 I.T.A. Nos.1187 & 3122/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 1690 & 1691/Chny/17 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the cost sharing agreement between

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1690/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

action of the Assessing Officer on levying 10% TDS payment. 4. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 I.T.A. Nos.1187 & 3122/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 1690 & 1691/Chny/17 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the cost sharing agreement between

Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3122/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

action of the Assessing Officer on levying 10% TDS payment. 4. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 I.T.A. Nos.1187 & 3122/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 1690 & 1691/Chny/17 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the cost sharing agreement between

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1187/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

action of the Assessing Officer on levying 10% TDS payment. 4. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 I.T.A. Nos.1187 & 3122/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 1690 & 1691/Chny/17 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the cost sharing agreement between

Neeta Nitin Bhoir, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 20(2) (4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2114/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 50C

directed the AO to grant reduction in computation of Capital Gain as per the records produced.” 2. This is a second round of appeal before the Tribunal pertaining to taxability and computation of capital gains income of capital gains income arising from sale of immovable property. In the first round

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the he Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in further appeal before the is in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. counsel The Ld. counsel submitted that since the assessee was granted complete relief on merit by the Ld. CIT(A), that

Sri. Abdul Azeez, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

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

ITA 747/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Hemanth N.P., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 50CSection 50C(2)

valuation report could not be filed within the time limit for completing the assessment. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Copy of the valuation report dated 29.03.2019 and the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2018 are placed on record. The learned

Kusuma Cashews, Karkala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 511/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

passing a fresh assessment Order after making verification and enquiry with regard to issues mentioned above.” 6. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 5 of 21 7. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the impugned addition is main issue before the AO since the assessee

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the Assessee did not get relief from the DRP/CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)/DRP whereby plea of the Assessee was accepted. 8. At the time

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

passed the final assessment order in accordance with the directions of the DRP. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment. 3. The assessee raised 19 grounds with respect to the TP adjustment made by the TPO. The assessee also filed additional grounds with ... adjustment 40,32,45,354 15. Aggrieved by the TP adjustment made in the final assessment order, the Assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 16. With regard to the exclusion of Nihilent Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd. Aspire Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Thirdware Solutions

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

gave partial relief to the assessee whereby the TP adjustment was reduced to Rs.4,94,73,850. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the final order of assessment passed in pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. The assessee adopted transfer net margin method (TNMM

Pgs Premiere Conferencing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 622/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer in the revised assessment order.” 4. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. None was present on behalf of the assessee, though in the earlier round, the representative of the assessee had appeared before the Tribunal

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

addition made by the AO towards assets received free of cost / loan basis was confirmed by the DRP. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. During the course of hearing

Mittal Park Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 945/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mahimkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

very outset, it is brought to the notice of the Bench that there is a delay of Rs.1337 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee by filing application sought to condone the delay on the grounds inter alia that M/s. Anantram & Co., Chartered Accountant was appointed

Digant Laxmidas Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 622/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh
Section 143(1)Section 5(1)Section 6

appellant are dismissed”. (Emphasis Supplied) 3 ITA. No. 622/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the addition of INR 15,48,775/- in the hands of the Appellant during the relevant assessment year on the basis of interest

Natural Remedies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(2)

appellant.” 5. Since the CITAA has not deleted the addition made to 115JB while allowing the appeal, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on this specific point raising the following grounds:- 1. “That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial