“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems, Chennai

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

ITA 29/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.28 & 29/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johanson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., Fca : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 55 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17. 2. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 55 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal due to outbreak of COVID-19 2 I.T.A. Nos. 28 & 29/Chny/21 pandemic and accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals are condoned ... section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned for both the assessment years. 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems, Chennai

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

ITA 28/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

Velayutham Pillai Giri, Chennai vs. It-Ncw22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 179/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

were not available at the time of assessment in the records of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee first

Shri Premkumar Menon, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3070/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 24

Rs.12,89,323/- stands confirmed. The grounds taken in the appeal are dismissed.” Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate stated the fact that the assessee has actually let out these two floors

Madras Lamps Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2055/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2055/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Madras Lamps Private Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (In Liquidation), Corporate Ward 4(1), The Office Of Official Liquidator, 29, Chennai. Corporate Bhavan, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aahcm3410G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Parthasarathy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 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) 8, Chennai, Dated 18.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 91 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, The Official Liquidator Has Explained The Reasons For The Delay. By Referring To The Condonation Petition, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Prayed For Condoning The Delay Against Which, The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 91 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an Affidavit, the Official Liquidator has explained the reasons for the delay

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte.Ltd Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1781/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1781/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2019-20) Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. (Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.) C/O. Dhruva Advisors Llp 1101 & 1102, 11Th Floor, One World Centre, Tower 2B, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aadcd – 4348-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(1)(2), Room No.1612, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)

assessee pointed that for similar reasons the addition was made in Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1212/Mum/2021. The Tribunal vide order dated 04/07/2022 held that the amount received by the assessee from its Indian subsidiary does not fall within ... same during the year under reference. The assessee, aggrieved by the assessment order for Assessment Year 2017-18 carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.1212/Mum/2021 (supra) has discussed the issue threadbare and held as under: “ 7. We have heard the rival contentions

Mr. Ankit Girishkumar Vasani, Mumbai vs. ITO 35(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1593/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Section 144Section 147Section 148

agree with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has carried out share trading transactions with four brokers, out of which the transactions entered with

Dr. Sankaran Sundar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bangalore

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

ITA 572/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri. Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

under VSVS 2020. 3 ITA No.572/Bang/2022. Dr.Sankaran Sundar. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], NFAC, passed under Section

Daivagna Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Davangere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 542/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Pranavkrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

raised and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper book comprising of 117 pages inter alia enclosing therein the case laws relied on, written

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 173/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

condoned. Thus, the appeal is not admitted in terms of provisions of sec. 249(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.AR stated that the CIT(A) has not given any opportunity on condonation of delay as the appeals were

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 172/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 171/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

Sun Combine, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 170/CHNY/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

M/S Well Wisher Construction Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Ward 18 (1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 7605/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Khushiram JadhwaniFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Mohite, Sr.D.R

relief on the disputed amounts noted above, in the first appeal before CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also taken note of the material referred

Syed Mohammed Rizwan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bangalore

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

ITA 696/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24Section 68

since the necessary documentary evidence was not produced, the AO was right in allowing this deduction.” 9. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7 Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan 10. Before us the learned A.R. submitted that the assessee is in the business of making ready to eat food

Zynga Game Network India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 693/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Zynga Game Network Vs Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road No. 19, Prestige Falcon Tower Koramangala 4Th & 5Th Floor, Brunton Bengaluru 560095 Road, Richmond Town Bengaluru 560025 Pan – Aaacz3937G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10054666 Dated 16.06.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc / Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Disallowing The Delayed Remittance Of The Employees Contribution To Pf Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Remitted The Same Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

been disallowed by the assessing officer. The addition of Rs.46,29,132/- is confirmed. The Grounds are, thus, dismissed” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned AR submitted that an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case

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 577/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Rajanikanth Reddy Vs The Income Tax Officer- 4(2)(2) No.21, 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Bengaluru Layout, Madiwala Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Ablpr5981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Bengaluru-4/10069/2020-21 Dated 25.05.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Income Of Appellant In The Order U/S. 154 Of The Act, At Rs. 1,92,26,970/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,09,63,817/-, Under The Normal Provisions, On Account Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 82,63,148/- Made U/S.36[1][Va] Of The Act, Based Upon The Details In The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 36Section 43BSection 44A

cannot be allowed and accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned AR submitted that an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ShakuntalaAgarbathi Company Vs. DICT

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

after considering the submissions made by the assessee during current proceedings.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 M/s. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products Additional income towards excess stock 7. With regard to whether the excess stock should be assessed

Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.307/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Level 10, Citrine Building Bagmane World Circle – 3(1)(1), Technology Centre, 4, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Mahadevpura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aahcm 2578 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), 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 Provision Of Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its Wholly

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the assessee did not get relief from the DRP, the assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 19 7. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 240/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92D

adjustment and the AO passed the final order of assessment as per the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.240/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 24 4. The assessee has entered into the following international transactions with its AE:- (i) Software development