“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

Aptive Components India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in respect of ground no

ITA 1129/DEL/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/S Aptiv Components India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S Delphi Vs Circle-3(1), Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Room No.-380B, C.R. Building P-24, Green Part Extn., Delhi- I.P. Estate, 110016. Delhi-110002. Pan- Aaacd0226E Assessee Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who vide his order dated 11th September, 2014 deleted the addition. Against this order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 31st October 2017 remanded back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the claim

Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1681/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44Section 44ASection 5

Assessing Officer. The said action of the AO was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2023 in ITA No.-6971/Del/2018 & ITA No. 7726/Del/2019 in assessee’s own case quashed the reopening

Brajesh Kumar Ahirwar, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

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

ITA 491/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 144

considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I proceeded to adjudicate the issue with the assistance of ld. DR of the Revenue

Urusi Rahman, Kadma vs. ITO, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 257/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.257/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Urusi Rahman….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 88 New Rani Kodar, Line No.4, Po Kadma, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831005. [Pan: Amxpr0867K] Vs. Ito, Jsr…..……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Declared Consideration Of ₹10,00,000, Whereas The Value Adopted For Stamp Duty Purposes Was ₹25,75,000. It Was Alleged That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Act Were Applicable. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 133(6) Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To Explain The Reasons For Not Filing The Return Of Income & To Furnish Details Regarding The Purchase Of The Property. However, There Was No Compliance By The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued After Obtaining The Requisite Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. During The Course

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

assessee went in appeal where the learned CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessment was completed without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and requested that one more opportunity

Kuruganti Srivalli, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle, Dhanbad

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

ITA 84/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.84/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kuruganti Srivalli….. …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant S3 & S4 Vasudha Enclave, Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, Hyderabad, Telengana-500056. [Pan: Asipk8246J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ci(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Premises Of The Atibir Group Of Cases. Simultaneously, Survey Proceedings Under Section 133A Of The Act Were Also Carried Out At Certain Business Premises Of The Group. In The Case Of The Assessee, Proceedings Were Initiated On 17.03.2021. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹10,85,410. Thereafter, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Duly Issued & Served. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Filed Submissions During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During The Search, The Locker Maintained With Axis Bank Was Opened & Statements Of The Husband

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 250

sustained the addition. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that, as per the CBDT guidelines and settled legal position, a married woman is permitted to hold up to 400 grams of gold jewellery

Anil Kumar Mandal, Fatehpur, Sahibganj vs. ITO, Sahibganj

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

ITA 461/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.461/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Mandal.. …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Fathepur, Balapokhar Rajmahal, Jharkhand-816109. [Pan: Bkhpm1302H] Vs. Ito, Sahibganj……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri R R Mittal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Based On Information Available With The Assessing Officer, It Was Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹44,73,800 In A Savings Bank Account During The Relevant Assessment Year. On Account Of Such Cash Deposits, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 After Recording Reasons & Obtaining The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee For Filing The Return Of Income. However, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income Nor Complied With The Notices Issued Under Section 142(1) Of The Act. In The Absence Of Any Compliance, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte & Treated The Entire Cash Deposit Of ₹44,73,800 In The Savings Bank Account As

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

directing the Assessing Officer to consider the said amount in accordance with law. 4. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that there was no bank account in which cash deposits of ₹44,73,800 were made, as alleged by the Assessing

Shankar Polmersetty, Bagbera Kitadih vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 454/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.454/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Polmersetty.... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant H.No.12, Gel Church Mohlla, Gurudwara Road, Tatanagar, Ps Bagbera, Kitadih, Jharkhand- 831002. [Pan: Ajspp1582B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Jamshedpur.….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed By Making An Addition Of ₹12,21,500 Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Purchased A Flat For A Consideration Of ₹9,35,000, Whereas The Stamp Duty Value Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was ₹21,56,500. Accordingly, The Difference Was Treated As Income Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act. The Assessee Submitted That The Booking Of The Flat Was Made On 28.06.2010 & An Advance Payment Of ₹51,000 Was Made Through Account Payee Cheque On The Date Of Agreement. It Was Further Contended That The Property Is Situated In A Rural Area & The Stamp Duty Value As On The Date Of Agreement Was Much Lower Than

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

rectification order was passed on 04.09.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the partial sustaining of the addition, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the agreement to purchase and initial payment were made on 28.06.2010 and as per settled law, stamp duty value

Anuradha Seth, Ludhiana Punjab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana Punjab

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

ITA 259/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 69B

grams, valued at Rs. 20,53,800/- (@ Rs. 4890/gram) 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us , the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

Swami Shree Akhandanand Sagar Charitable Trust, Anand vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1849/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)

since the assessee-trust failed to submit substantial documentary evidences. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT

Mahendra Shambhulal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Ahmedabad (Existing Ward 3(3)(2), Ahmedabad)

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

ITA 1423/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblemahendra Shambhulal Thakkar, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-402, Preet Apt. Ward-3(3)(3), Nr. Sonal Char Rasta, Ahmedabad. Memnagar, (Existing Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad-380052. Ahmedabad.) [Pan :Adlpt4469 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P.D Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 24BSection 68

aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We direct that Assessing Officer while passing the assessment

Pradeep Janardhan Sakhare, Sambhajinagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2509/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2509/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Janardhan Sakhare, Ito, Ward – 1(1), Ashay Regency, Flat No. 9, Aurangabad New Vishal Nagar, Chh. Sambhajinagar, Vs. Maharashtra-431001 Pan : Bobps8283M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual) Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of 18-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. For Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.3,17,830/-. Based On The Information Received From The Insight Portal Under „High Risk Criu/Vru Information‟, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Done Transaction In Crypto Currency Of Rs.38,54,500/-, The Source Of Which Requires Verification & Also There Were Unexplained Credit Entries Aggregating To Rs.40,44,044/-. As The Assessee Failed To Disclose The Above Transaction In The Itr Filed For The Ay 2018-19, The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Had Reason To Believe That The Above Income In Ay 2018-19 Has Escaped Assessment. Accordingly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Dated 07.04.2022. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 09.06.2023. Statutory Notice(S) U/S 142(1) & 144 Were Then Issued To The Assessee. As The Assessee Failed To File Any Compliance

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69ASection 69B

resulted in ex-parte decision by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. THE CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara vs. Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Dahiwadi, Man, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1801/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1800 & 1801/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Satara Circle, Satara अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Dahiwadi, Vs. At Post-Dahiwadi, Tal.-Man Satara, Satara-415508 Pan: Aaoas0059G प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri R.C. Doshi Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 18-12-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 19.05.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 & 2020-21. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are eligible for deduction. The contra consideration of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal is incorrect and liable to be modified as stated above. Hence, it is held that the interest income earned by the assessee does ... result, appeal is partly allowed." 4. The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara vs. Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Dahiwadi, Tal. Man Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1800/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1800 & 1801/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Satara Circle, Satara Vs. Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Dahiwadi, At Post-Dahiwadi, Tal.-Man Satara, Satara-415508 Pan: Aaoas0059G अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Shri R.C. Doshi Department By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-12-2025 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 19.05.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 & 2020-21. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are eligible for deduction. The contra consideration of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal is incorrect and liable to be modified as stated above. Hence, it is held that the interest income earned by the assessee does ... result, appeal is partly allowed." The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1760/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

regards other income; it was not considered to be in the hands of the present assessee. Obviously, the department being aggrieved preferred appeal before the Tribunal and at the same time, the present assessee filed cross objection regarding part of the income, to the extent of a sum of Rs.5

Reddy Housing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 635/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Reddy Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, #133/1 The Residency, 2Nd Floor Ward - 2, Residency Road, Hassan. H No.36B, Bommegowda Building, Paduvalu, Hippe Holenarasipur, Hassan– 573 211, Karnataka. Pan : Bsops 2078 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Narendra Sharma Adv Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Narendra Sharma AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

failed to prove this either during the assessment proceedings or in the instant appellant proceedings.” 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities by way of statement of facts and further he referred

Sri. Shivayogi Muneswara Swamy Vidya, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Exemption, Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Shivayogi Muniswara Vs. Ito, Swamy Vidyapeetha, Ward –3 (Exemption), 1 Maralegavi Mutta, Kanakapura Tq, Bangalore. Kanakapura – 562 117, Karnataka. Pan : Aahts 1565 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ramaraju, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Ramaraju, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)

filed appeal before learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that there is delay in uploading of Form

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Arun Kumar Pillai, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3842/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Shri. Arun Kumar Pillai, Central Circle – 2(3), Strides House, Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta Bangalore. Road, Bangalore South, Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Afbpp 0461 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

covered under section 132 of the Act and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR relied on the Order of AO and submitted that proper satisfaction was recorded by the AO of M/s. Skanray Technologies

Bomme Gowda, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hassan

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

ITA 1908/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. Bomme Gowda, Vs. Ito, H No.36B, Bommegowda Building, Ward - 2, Paduvalu, Hassan. Hippe Holenarasipur, Hassan– 573 211, Karnataka. Pan : Bsops 2078 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 144Section 68

response from the assessee’s side. Therefore, he dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that there were group of people in village who were engaged in sand transportation activities and the accounts were opened

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Cosmopolis Educational Trust, Bengaluru

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

ITA 575/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan UA, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT

Section 11

addition towards inter-trust balance transfer of ₹20,22,96,029/- and disallowance of revenue expenditure of ₹3,44,44,734/- remain under appeal before the Tribunal; and (iii) the other additions under section 69C relating to donation paid, difference in revenue expenditure, and takeover of Embassy Public School have

Anju Manish Gangar, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 28(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6677/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 253

days in filing the present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, which is reproduced herein below: (i) The Assessee ("the Applicant" herein) has filed the captioned appeal under section 253 of the Income