← 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

Gayatri Global Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 456/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, 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 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

where Ld. AO sustained the assessment order primarily on the ground of non-compliance by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted to the assessee and prayed that the matter be restored

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(1)Section 80P

Bhattacharya [1977, 118 ITR 461 (SC)] dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Without touching merits & grounds of appeal we have heard the rival parties on former limited issue and subject to rule 18 of ITAT- Rules

Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhav (Maldhari), Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

income tax authority, against the demand raised on the assessee. Then-after the assessee obtained the order of ld.CIT(A) and filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, such huge delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, has resulted because of the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee ... considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT was not appealable before this Tribunal since they were not advised by their Tax Consultants about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised them to file an appeal, the assessees

Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhav ( Maldhari), Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

income tax authority, against the demand raised on the assessee. Then-after the assessee obtained the order of ld.CIT(A) and filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, such huge delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, has resulted because of the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee ... considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT was not appealable before this Tribunal since they were not advised by their Tax Consultants about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised them to file an appeal, the assessees

Manish Ishwarbahi Patel, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(4), Vadodara

ITA 1829/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Suvas Hitendrabhai Barot, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1401/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 271ASection 69

rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the threshold, we deal with the issue of delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The delay of 369 days admittedly falls during the period affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the delay of 369 days in filing

Cprs Rugnalay Denagi Samiti, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

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

ITA 290/PUN/2025[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Cprs Rugnalay Denagi Samiti Ito, Exemption Ward, C/O Cpr Hospital, Dasara Chowk, Kolhapur Vs. Bhendegalli S.O., Karvir, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Aaagc1618P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

result, this appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming denial

Hidaya Education Trust, Bhiwandi vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1142/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36A

12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangalore vs. Marla Kallaje Prashanth, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2056/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Vs. Shri. Marla Kallaje Prashanth, Circle –1, A.J Hospital, Kuntikana, Mangalore. Mangalore – 575 004,Karnataka. Pan :Aexpm 8166 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Kamath, Ca Revenue By : Shri.Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

source of cash found. Therefore he allowed appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved from the Order of learned CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned DR relied on the Order of AO and submitted that while recording the statement during the course of search under

Ankita Badal Mittal, Mumbai vs. Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5484/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69A

appellate order dated 15.07.2025, the NFAC has dismissed the Appellant's Appeal. Hence, the Appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In the course of hearing, the Tribunal was pleased to hear the preliminary issues referred to in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of para

Ca (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2078/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalca(Singapore) Pte Ltd., The Assistant Vs. C/O Ca (India) Technologies Commissioner Of India Private Limited, Income Tax, S1 Wipro Sez, International Taxation, Doddathogur Village, Circle2 (1)(1), Begur Hobli, Mumbai. Electronic City, Bangalore-560100. [Pan :Aahcc8349Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain, With Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, Ars Respondent By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, with Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 270ASection 274

taxable@10% as per DTAA Total Income 48,27,76,315/- 6. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assesse filed appeal before the Tribunal. Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 9– 7. At the time of hearing the Ld.AR submitted that grounds nos.1, 1.1, 2, 2.1, are general in nature

Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Not Applicable

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 32MSection 56(2)(x)

appellant is disallowed and addition of Rs. 18,48,70,810/- is upheld.” 6. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. 7. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee placed reliance upon the written submissions and supplementary ... against the addition Rs.80,34,09,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 7. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages

Prashant Sethi, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5148/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Ms Renu Jauhriprashant Sethi, Vs. Ito, 65-C, J Block, Phase-1, National Faceless Ashok Vihar, Ashok Vihar Assessment Centre, H. O., Ashok Vihar, North- Ward-36(1), New Delhi West Delhi- 110052, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Amjps5673C

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

notice issued by the ld CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed ex parte vide order dated 26.06.2025. Aggrieved further the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On the date of hearing none was present on behalf of the assessee. After hearing the ld DR and on perusal

Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 829/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Ms. Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd., Additional / Joint/ Deputy / 10Th Floor, Dlf Two Horizon Assistant Deputy Centre, Dlf V, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gold Course Road, Income Tax Officer, Gurugram-122002, National E-Assessment Haryana, India. Centre, Delhi. Pan- Aadcc2076J Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92C

assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, vide order dated 30.03.2021. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. AR has submitted that the issue now stands covered by the decision

ITO Ward - 18(3), New Delhi vs. Samkiksha Mahajan, New Delhi

ITA 347/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 153A

Against the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The first issue in this appeal of Revenue and Assessee

Career Abroad Educational Consultants Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 84/CHANDI/2025[2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

dismissed all the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 are void ab initio

Avon Cycles Limited, G.T Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana

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

ITA 705/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 705/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs The Pcit-I, G.T.Road, Dhandari Kalan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं/.Pan No: Aabca4140R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Pcit"), Dated 27.03.2025, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantive Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Ld. Pcit -1, Ludhiana, Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming The Jurisdiction To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act To Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) When The Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order Passed By Ld. Pcit(1), Ludhiana, Being Illegal Unjustified & Against The Provisions Of Section 263 May Be Annulled. 2. That Ld. Pcit (1) Erred In Law & On Facts In Setting Aside The Order Of Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) By Applying The Different Approach On The Same Set Of Facts On The Issues Already Considered By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 69C

aside the assessment order, directing a fresh assessment. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 5.1 The ld. AR hadsubmitted that in the present case, the ld. AO has passed a detailed elaborate order

Harshvardhan T.Soni, Dahod vs. The ACIT, Panchamahal Circle, Godhra Present Jurisdiction the ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271ASection 68

said amount. Ground of appeal 2 is dismissed…” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted: - • Copies of return acknowledgement, computation of income, audited financial statements, and tax audit report

Ayan Education and Welfare Society, Aurangabad vs. CIT(Exemption), . Pune

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

ITA 256/PUN/2025[-]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraayan Education & Welfare Society Cit(Exemption), Pune H.No.4-10-72/P, Roshan Gate Road, Vs. Qaiser Colony, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aacta4441M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

earlier dated 14.10.2021 was also cancelled. 4. Aggrieved with such rejection of approval u/s 80G by Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the order of the Ld. CIT(E). It is an admitted fact that

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Pune, Swargate vs. Mangal Balasaheb Gole, Kothrud

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

ITA 1209/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Ito, Ward 2(4), Pune Mangal Balasaheb Gole Vs. Pirangut, Kothrud, S.O Pune City, Pune – 411038 Affpg6617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 54B

Assessing Officer by observing as under: 3 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case