← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

M/S. Sree Rajendra Textiles, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sree Rajendra Textiles, Dcit, Vs. 385, 5Th Floor, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Circle – 5(2)(1), 2Nd Block, 80 Feet Road, Bengaluru. Sanjaynagar, Bengaluru – 560 094. Pan : Aaefs 9813 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

appeal because the impugned order of the CIT(A) was served on the assessee on 13.02.2020 and the assessee had time to file appeal before the Tribunal up to 12.04.2020. In view of Covid- 19 pandemic and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2021 directing period ... hereunder.” 5. The CIT(A) thereafter confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. It is the plea of the assessee in ground Nos.1 and 2 that the CIT(A) did not afford opportunity of being

Shri Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54B

Bengaluru – 6, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 1065 days in filing this appeal. The appeal before the Tribunal has to be filed within 60 days from the receipt of the order of the CIT(A). There is no evidence to indicate ... assessee before the CIT(A) that the address for service has been given as the assessee’s address as given in the appeal before the Tribunal. On scrutiny of the CIT(A) folder, it appears that immediately after the date of the order of the CIT(A), the order

M/S. Invendis Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 986/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 90Section 91

based on the revised sales figures submitted by the assessee. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee is an appeal before The Tribunal. Section 91 r.w.r 128 allows the assessee, to claim a deduction from the Indian income-tax payable in respect of incomes which

M/S Irunway India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37Section 40

this argument of the assessee also. Page 15 of 34 19. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated submissions that was made before the Revenue authorities. He placed reliance on the decision ... virtue of Article 15 of the Indo US treaty. 31. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. Learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the invoices

M/S. Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144CSection 92(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

order in his arguments and submissions during appeal proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 31. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated submissions made before CIT(A). It was submitted that the Assessee

M/S Pavan Traders, Ballari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Ballari

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1609/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Pavan Traders, Dcit, Vs. C/O. M/S Raghavendra Filling Station, Circle – 1, Moka Road, Ballari. Ballari – 583 103. Pan : Abefs 0812 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 260A

sufficient material to allow any relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions. The Delhi High Court in the case of Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Dcit

Ashish Life Science P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-Circle-9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 964/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Cir, 9(1)(2) 210, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Through National Faceless Appeal Center Which Is Bad In Law & Invalid. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Without. Considering The Written Submissions Filed By The Appellant. As Such, The Order Is

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

prefer any appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. For A.Y.2005-06, against the order of the CIT(A), the department had filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed and the department did not prefer any appeal before the High Court. Hence, in this background, the Hon’ble High Court

Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

ITA 696/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 80I

80IB(10) in respect of Mayanagar project. In first appeal, the assessee succeeded. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 2764/Mum/2018 (supra). The Co-ordinate bench discussed the issue threadbare on facts and legal requirements and thereafter upheld the findings

Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 400/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. T Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT DR
Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(3)

assessee that the assessment order passed by AO was barred by limitation u/s. 201(3) of the Act. 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT appeals. We will first consider the issue of AO’s order u/s. 201(1) being time barred

Gulshan Mohd Arif Tase, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3242/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 3242/मुं/2017("न.व.2012-13) Gulshan Mohd. Arif Tase, Gulshan Bungalow, Mira Bhayander Road, Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane – 401 107. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Adkpt-5999-C बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 2(4), 6Th Floor, Room No.8, A-Wing Ashar It Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane(W) – 400 604 : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 54BSection 54F

filed letter seeking adjournments on any of the dates fixed for hearing. It seems that the assessee is not keen to pursue his appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, we are constrained to take up this appeal for hearing on the basis of material available on record and with the assistance

Tarkett Flooring India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 201/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.201/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Tarkett Flooring India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.460, 2Nd Cross, Circle – 7(1)(1), Krishna Temple Road, Bengaluru. Binnamangala 1St Stage, Bengaluru-560 038. Pan : Aadct 9947 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Sumeet Khuranna, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Aggrieved by the final order of Assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order of the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner of Income

Smt. Nanjamma, Bengaluru vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 160/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

relied on the 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 coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

Smt. Nanjamma, Bengaluru vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 159/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

relied on the 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 coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders 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 Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

grounds of appeal cannot be accepted. The same are therefore disallowed.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is an appeal before the Tribunal. Page 5 of 17 Application for condonation of delay 5. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 10 days ... revenue with any contrary materials, in the interest of justice we condone the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal filed by assessee stands admitted to be adjudicated on issues raised. Page 6 of 17 7. Ground No.2: The Ld.AR

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both, assessee’s appeal and revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4515/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

predecessor’s orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2011-12 , decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, on this issue. 5. Upon hearing the parties, we find that this is a recurring issue since assessment year ... following his predecessor’s orders for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2011-12, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. Upon hearing the parties, we note that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for earlier

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both, assessee’s appeal and revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4448/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

predecessor’s orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2011-12 , decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, on this issue. 5. Upon hearing the parties, we find that this is a recurring issue since assessment year ... following his predecessor’s orders for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2011-12, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. Upon hearing the parties, we note that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for earlier

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

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.225/Bang/2021 Page 6 of 23 8. The main grievance of the Assessee projected in the grounds of appeal filed before

M/S. Slv Housing Development Corporation, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 19/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V Chavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Taxman 179 (Delhi) and thereby confirmed the order of AO 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before The Tribunal. 7. The Ld AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was not aware of that