← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Phpl Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1714/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 3Section 68

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal ... account of share capital and share premium were deleted. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. In the course of the appeal before us, it was argued

Mr. Mohan Mathew, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2074/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2074/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sharavanan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

addition is sustained. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the income-tax authorities. :- 5 -: 6. The Ld.DR strongly supported the orders

Jeyaprakash Natrajan, Chennai vs. Assessing Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2012/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2012/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Aswani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69

satisfactory and accordingly appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that on :- 5 -: medical issues of assessee’s brother, he could not represent the case before the AO. Consequently, the assessment

Bombay Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd Employees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6453/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 INR.24,08,874/- from co-operative banks. 6. Therefore, being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 7. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that identical issue had come up before

Bombay Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd Empoyees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6452/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 INR.24,08,874/- from co-operative banks. 6. Therefore, being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 7. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that identical issue had come up before

Diling Tatak, Papum Pare vs. ITO, Ward- North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 277/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 250

vide order dated 23.06.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) observed that, the service

Sanjay Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward-4(5) Patna, Patna

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

ITA 343/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 250Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 44A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 343/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjay Kumar. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Appellate order of the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC)- Delhi. Is bad and erroneous both ... made was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. In Ground

Gopaljee Prasad, Darbhanga vs. Dc/Ac Cir-3, Darbhanga

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

ITA 465/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 10.05.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2017. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of Assessing officer passed ... result, the appeal is treated as dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that there was a survey u/s 133A

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. M/S Maxxon Vanijya & Resources Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 89/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2012-13 dated 26.08.2021. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following revised grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... result, the appeal is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. DR submitted that an order u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A/143

Bhikshu Margam, Pune vs. CIT Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 1769/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Bhikshu Margam Dcit, Circle – 2, Pune S No 52A, Mula Road, Khadki, Vs. Pune – 411003 Pan: Aacfb9767B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

appeal is not tenable and is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the ad hoc disallowance

Chunakhali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Berhampore, Murshidabad vs. I.T.O., Ward - 56(3), Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 04.03.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AddI/JT. CIT(A) erred ... 80AC and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted

Chandras Chemical Enterprises Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 929/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the AY 2015-16 dated 27.02.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the Ld. AO under wrong notion had disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act aggregate ... This ground of appal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The issue relates to the disallowance

Rajendra Rampal, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2167/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Appeal Order passed u/s 250 dated 05.04.2025 of the Income ... compliance was made to the notice issued. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted before the Tribunal

Lalit Sen Lane Pratibandhi Unnayan Samity, Murshidabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 (4), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 2175/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 30.08.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur (“CIT(A)"), under section ... should have been allowed but the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that though the audit

Income Tax Officer-2(1)(4), Rudrapur vs. Swarnim Promoters & Developers, Rudrapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer-2(1)(4), Swarnim Promotoers & Rudrapur. Developers, Vs. Mandi Parisar Kichha Road, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. Pan: Abqfs9375M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, Ca & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 06.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 17.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,89,400/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Has Computed The Total Income At Rs.1,27,38,630/- Vide Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 02.06.2011 By Making The Following Additions/Disallowances:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

unsecured loans and interest thereon and further deleted the disallowance of construction development expenses. 4. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. Law and on facts of the case by deleting the amount of Rs.1

Swami Darshanand Institute of Management and Technology, Haridwar vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalswami Darshanand Institute Of Income Tax Officer, Management & Technology, Ward-1(3)(1), Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, Vs. Haridwar. P.O. Gurukul Kangi, Jwalpur, Haridwar-249407. Pan:Aalas6789G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shalil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Salies Gupta, Adv. & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.05.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Engaged In Imparting Education. The Ao Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.93,10,000/- In The Saving Bank Account Maintained With A Central Bank Of India Which Is Not Declared & Thus Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, Submissions Were Made By The Assessee Wherein It Is Claimed That This Account Pertained To Other Society & All The Deposits Are Duly

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

accepted the contention of the assessee and made the addition for the same. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts

Anuska Agency, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Wared-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 597/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 597/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Anuska Agency Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Chahata Ghat Infront Of Gayatri Temple, Bidanasi, Cuttack 753014 Pan No. : Aavfa 0007 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Chennai Dated 28.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 182 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 182 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is a traders of soft drinks, juice, packaged drinking water soda, cold drinks, etc. It was submission that in the course

Rebati Dandapat, Mandir Pada, Nuapada, Odhisa vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhawani Patna Warda, Bhawanipatna

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

ITA 554/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.554/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Rebati Dandapat Vs Ito, Bhawanipatna Ward, W/O:- Priyaranjan Dandapat, Bhawanipatna Ward No:- 04, Mandir Pada, Nuapada, 766105 Pan No. : Dqrpd 6219 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Gupta, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 24/04/2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 106 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 106

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. The Authorized Representative of the assessee, Mr. Vijay Gupta, being a Chartered Accountant, who appeared in the virtual hearing, was not in uniform as prescribed in the SOP for appearing

Mr. Polavarapu Sambasiva Rao, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhubanewar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 550/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Panda, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

above three appeals, ITA Nos.548/CTK/2025 for A.Y.2016-2017 is delayed by 228 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.549/CTK/2025 is delayed by 408 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.550/CTK/2025 is delayed by 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard

Mr. Polavarapu Sambasiva Rao, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 549/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Panda, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

above three appeals, ITA Nos.548/CTK/2025 for A.Y.2016-2017 is delayed by 228 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.549/CTK/2025 is delayed by 408 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.550/CTK/2025 is delayed by 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard