“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

Varadaraj Sumathi, Arcot vs. ITO, Ward 2, Vellore

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

ITA 367/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 367/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Smt. Varadaraj Sumathi, The Income Tax Officer, 35/12A, Vellore Main Road, 1St Street, Vs. Ward 2, Vellore. Arcot 632 503. [Pan:Bbzps1853C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-8, Chennai, Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

short]. 2. The appeal was filed by the assessee with a delay of 507 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal due to outbreak of Covid-19 2 I.T.A. No.367/Chny/21 pandemic. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Facts ... which was not submitted earlier before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings.” 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and reopened the assessment

Smt, Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 922/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

discussed in the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act dated 20.05.2020. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing paper book consisting of various details as was furnished before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. PCIT, the ld. Counsel

Arabia Beevi, Kuttalam vs. ITO Ward-2, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 581/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.581/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Arabia Beevi, The Income Tax Officer, 4/39, Thaikkal Pattakar Street, Vs. Ward 2, Therzhandur 609 808 Kumbakonam. Kuttalam Taluk. [Pan:Bpspa0967E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 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) 1, Trichy, Dated 18.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 360 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition To Condone The Delay. Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause & The Ld. Dr Has Not Made Any Serious Objections

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 360 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition to condone the delay. Since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause ... appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the assessment order. 3 I.T.A. No. 581/Chny/20 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice through RPAD on record. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

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

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 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) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the reopening of assessment is beyond four years, reasons are not based on any evidence ... there in section 80HHC at the time when the assessee filed the returns or even the original assessments were made. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the invocation of the proviso to section 147 to be invalid and set aside the reassessments under section 147/148. On appeal: Held

M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

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

ITA 3243/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

making necessary enquiries and verifications in relation to the issues stated in the revision order. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer, by order dated 15.03.2015 under section ... dismissed. 5 I.T.A. Nos.2913/Chny/18 & 3243/Chny/19 I.T.A. No. 3243/Chny/2019 8. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 10 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in support of an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, the ld. Counsel

DCIT, Circle - 3 (1), Trichy vs. Shri Srinivasan Devendran, Trichy

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

ITA 2675/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Srinivasan Devendran, Income Tax, Circle , No. 25, I.A.S. Nagar, Trichy. Trichy 620 013. [Pan:Abspd3194P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johanson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 14.09.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

Section 143(3)Section 44A

relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by three days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, the DCIT Circle 3(1), Trichy has filed a petition for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. 2 I.T.A ... profit margin at 6% with depreciation or 4% without depreciation as against 3% declared by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee being a civil contractor

Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Harur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 2913/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Hatkesh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 1011/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shripavankumargadale, Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhhatkesh Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer-25 Housing Society Ltd. (2) (4) 2Nd Floor, 51, Jain Co- Kautilyabhavan, Op Hsgsoc, N.S. Road Bandrakurla Complex, 11, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Bandra East Parle (W) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 Pan No.Aaalh0017Q Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 37,32,560/- in respect of TDR premium. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the impugned order passed by the C1T(A), The assessee has raised the following ground ofappeal against the impugned order

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3247/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer submitted the remand report. The remand report favoured the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal The Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that Unit II and Unit III are entitled for the benefit under Section ... Assessing Officer and the 3032 & 3247, 2947/Mum/2018 9 DCIT-8(2)(1) Vs. M/s Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner (Appeals) However, the Tribunal without considering the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the said finding. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Delhi High

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3032/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle -8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2947/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5597/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5597/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Maharashtra Housing & Acit (Exemption)-2(1) बिधम/ Area Development Piramal Chambers, Vs. Office Of Finance Lalbaug, Mumbai- Controller, Mhada, 4Th 400012. Floor, Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaajm0344H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-01, Mumbai Dated 28.06.2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “1.0 Denial Of Exemption Under S. 11 The Learned Cit(A) Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Upholding The Assessment Order Appealed Against Denying Exemption Under S.11 Of The Act. Relief Claimed: The Appellant Be Granted Exemption Under S.11 Of The Act. 2.0 Engaged In Business:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms. JasmineFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 234B

this proviso, Ld. DIT(Exemption) withdrew the certificate granting registration u/s 12A of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2011. The assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal (ITA. No.435/Mum/2012) and the Tribunal vide order dated 22.03.2013 was pleased to restore the registration u/s 12A of the Act. This action ... benefit under section 11 of the Act was denied to the assessee in assessment year 2010-11. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.6678/Mum/2013. The Tribunal vide order dated 04/06/2019 examined the issue of assessee’s eligibility to claim the benefit of exemption under

M/S. Tivo Tech Private Limited (Formerly Known As Veveo (India) Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 37

repairs & maintenance was reduced to Rs.2,85,14,365. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the Assessee has preferred the above appeal to this Tribunal. TP adjustment – SWD segment 6. The assessee raised 7 grounds and several sub grounds pertaining to the TP adjustment. The assessee also raised ... upheld the TPO’s order with respect to inclusion and exclusions of comparables. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. AR submitted that the TPO erred in not applying a cap on upper limit on the turnover/service revenue while selecting the IT(TP)A No.237/Bang/2021

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 774/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Miss. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 43B

I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 4 Sri Rajanikanth Reddy. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, West Bengal vs. DCIT Central Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 188/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2007-08) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cen.Circle-1(4), 9Th Flor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Chaudhari सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms.Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Chaudhari

Section 143(3)Section 244A(1)

interest u/s. 244A(1) of the Act many not be applicable. Against the aforesaid findings of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Shri Yogesh Thar appearing on behalf of the assessee fairly admitted that the 3. assessee made claim for first time before the Assessing

M/S Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 131/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Nandi Economic Corridor The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Enterprises Ltd., Circle – 5(1)(1), No.1, Midford House, Vs. Bengaluru. Midford Garden, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aabcn 2061 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siva Prasad Reddy, Itp Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

objections to the issues raised before him. 5. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed Paper Book comprising of 33 pages enclosing therein the notice issued by the AO under sections

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 771/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

771/Bang/2022 amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Coordinate

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 770/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Hemson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1899/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

expenses claimed by the assessee and accordingly granted partial relief to the assessee. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Amicus Curie, Shri Jayant Bhatt, CA submitted that the expenses incurred by the assessee were regular expenses incurred in the normal course of running

Mwh India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1891/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 1891/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10 ) Mwh India Pvt. Ltd. 168, Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon(E) Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaaca-4613-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 9(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D.Mistri With Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj Sheth ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistri with Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 50BSection 92C

order to be cautious and not to be denied an adjudication on technicality, the assessee still preferred the aforesaid Grounds while filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The above factual matrix brought out by the learned counsel is not disputed by the learned CIT(DR) and it is pointed