← 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

Grasim Industries Ltd.(As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 215/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

satisfied on the facts of this case. Just because an assessee has raised a claim by way of an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal, it does not necessarily mean that the delay is attributable to the assessee-this delayed claim could be on account of subsequent legislative

Sarang R Wadhawan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 851/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sarang R. Wadhawan, Asst. Cit, Central Circle-5(4), M/S Thar & Co. 203, Capri, Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air Opposite Hdil Towers, Anant Vs. India Building, Nariman Point, Kanekar Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapw 2530 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

Rules. Aggrieved with the finding of the ieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result ground II is allowed

ITA 524/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

justified on facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had raised VI grounds and various sub grounds. However, during the course of hearing, the learned AR had only pressed grounds

M/S. the Mathworks, Inc, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 364/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.364/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 M/S.The Mathworks, Inc. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick Income-Tax, V. Massachusetts 01760 International Taxation Cir.2(2) Bengaluru. United Sates Of America Pan : Aafct7230H. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Sumeet Kurana, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karhihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

No.364/Bang/2022 M/s.The Mathworks Inc. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds:- “The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order

M/S Sunshine Communication Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1294/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sunshine Communication Asst. Cit, Central Circle-5(4), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air 1St Floor, Capri, Anant Kanekar Vs. India Building, Nariman Point, Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadcs 4276 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nimesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, DR
Section 143(3)

upheld uph the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved additions/disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel

Sandeep Hisaria, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC- 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 787/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld Cit(A). The Assessee Has Filed These Appeals Challenging The Orders Passed By Ld Cit(A) On The Issues Decided Against Him.

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

Sangeetkumar Sawarmal Hisaria, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 785/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Some of the appeals were dismissed and some of the appeals were partly allowed. Hence, both the parties have filed appeals before the Tribunal challenging the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) against each of them. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12:- 3. We shall first take up the appeal filed ... 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

Prompt Toys Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -7(3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2068/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)

unable to produce the alleged purchase parties before the AO and addition was confirmed by the AO and the CIT(A). On appeal before the Tribunal it was held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases has to be taxed, thereby directing the AO to estimate

Renudevi Hisaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1291/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

made certain additions. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the said additions and hence the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. 3. We shall first take up the appeal filed for AY 2015-16. In this year, the assessee has raised a legal issue questioning the validity ... 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

Dy CIT-CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Sawarmal Hisaria Through L/H Sandeep Hisaria, Mumbai

ITA 1042/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Some of the appeals were dismissed and some of the appeals were partly allowed. Hence, both the parties have filed appeals before the Tribunal challenging the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) against each of them. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 and 2014-15 to 2016-17:- 3. We shall ... 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

M/S. Mysore Mercantile Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 551/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohammed Mujassim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 140A(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

paid which comes to Rs 12,91,642/- and gets relief of Rs 1,16,24,778/-.” 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. On merits the ld. AR submitted that the major reason for the non-payment of tax is the serious financial constraint

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

Appeals) did not accept the contentions of the assessee and upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax passed under Section

DCIT, Chennai vs. The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.587/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Rani Seethai Hall, No. 603, Anna Salai, Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Chennai 600 006. Building, Iii Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaatt0683N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai, Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: Ground No.1 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. Ground No:2: 2.1 The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Eligible For Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act & Not Hit By The Amended Provisions Of Sec.2(15) Of The Act, Under The Object Of "General Public Utility".

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11Section 2(15)

accepting the explanations of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that the assessee was running kalyana mandapams and women’s hostel, letting out building for commercial purposes

Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 645/HYD/2011[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(g)Section 92C

that while she fairly accepts that the grounds of appeal as available on the face of it this issue was not raised in appeal before the Tribunal, she would nevertheless try to find out as to what was the reason of not so raising ground of appeal

M/S. Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Idcit, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 105/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(g)Section 92C

challenged in further appeal. Even though in respect of the same assessment year on different issues the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee also produced before us a copy of the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year ... that while she fairly accepts that the grounds of appeal as available on the face of it this issue was not raised in appeal before the Tribunal, she would nevertheless try to find out as to what was the reason of not so raising ground of appeal

Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 342/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.342/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Ocwen Financial Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax V. Pritech Park, Survey No.51 To Special Range – 5 64/4, Block No.12, Unit 2, 5B & Bangalore. 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur Marathahalli Ring Road Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing It Enabled Services To Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Usvi. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ocwen Asia Holdings Limited, Mauritius. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.11.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.93,31,44,800. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income filed by the assessee. 11. Aggrieved by the impugned final assessment order dated 30.03.2021, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed 16 grounds. However, during the course of hearing, the learned AR limited his argument to only grounds

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Astrazenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

Doctors Assessed Income Rs.83,28,74,960 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, both the Revenue and assessee have filed appeal before the Tribunal. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal IT(TPA) No.82/Bang/2015 (Revenue’s appeal) 5. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The directions

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

Doctors Assessed Income Rs.83,28,74,960 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, both the Revenue and assessee have filed appeal before the Tribunal. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal IT(TPA) No.82/Bang/2015 (Revenue’s appeal) 5. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The directions

Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa

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

ITA 737/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Abhijit, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

same, the PCIT had passed the ex parte order. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed objections to the notice issued u/s 263 of the I.T.Act

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

capital gain of & CO 2/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 27 AY 2013-14 to 2017-18. The revenue and the assessee are in cross appeals before the Tribunal against the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals). 5. The issues contended by the revenue through various grounds raised is with regard ... No.21 of 2022 and No.665 of 2021). The assessee was also advised to file an application for condonation of delay in filling the appeal before the Tribunal. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji