BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

27 results for “TDS”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,866Mumbai1,587Chennai834Bangalore729Kolkata449Pune340Ahmedabad314Raipur268Hyderabad262Karnataka245Jaipur240Chandigarh182Patna173Cochin134Indore108Lucknow104Surat98Visakhapatnam93Cuttack72Rajkot61Amritsar56Nagpur46Agra42Jodhpur34Telangana33Allahabad31Panaji27Jabalpur23Guwahati20Dehradun19Varanasi13Calcutta13Kerala10SC6Rajasthan4Orissa4Ranchi4Punjab & Haryana1Uttarakhand1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 234E90Section 200A50TDS26Section 20116Condonation of Delay11Section 201(1)10Penalty10Natural Justice10Section 194A9Section 14A

FABRICA DA IGRE JA DE NAVELIM,NAVELIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1, PANAJI

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

ITA 192/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.192/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Fabrica Da Igreja De Navelim, Vs I T O, Our Lady Of Rosary Church, National E Assessment . Navelim, Salcete, Centre, South Goa-403707. Delhi. Goa. Pan.No.Aaatf0452H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 11Section 12A

TDS u/sec194A of the Act deducted by the banks on the interest income received in the F.Y.2014-15 and the assesse has not filed the return of income for the A.Y.2015-16. The Assessing officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income

VEERENDRA BASAVARAJ KOUJALAGI,BELAGAVI vs. CIRCLE 1 BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

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

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

9
Addition to Income8
Section 133A6
ITA 289/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed
ITAT Panaji
10 Dec 2025
AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.289/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2010-11) Veerendra Basavarajkoujalagi Vs Ito-Circle 1, Shri. Laxmi Complex,1St Cross Chessonroad, . Apmc Road,Sadashivnagar, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Belagavi-590001, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Agrpk3086D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS deductions, operation and maintenance charges of wind mill and confirmations. Whereas the Assessing officer has dealt on facts at Para 3 & 6 of the order and was not satisfied with the explanations and made additions/ disallowances(i)Agriculture expenditure estimated @15% of agriculture income which works out to Rs.1,09,497/-(ii) disallowance u/sec43B of the Act of Rs.27

KV SHETTY AND COMPANY,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TDS RANGE, PANAJI

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

ITA 127/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.123,124, 125,126,127,128 & 129/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20,2020-21 & 2021-22) K V Shetty & Company, Vs. I.T.O Tds, #1, College Road, Managalore, N.H.66, Tds Range-Panaji, Kumta-581343, Mangalore-Cr Uttara Kannada, Building, Annexe, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk8375K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS u/sec234E for delay in filling the quarterly return by the assessee. Aggrieved by the A.O. order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee

KV SHETTY AND COMPANY,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TDS RANGE PANAJI

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

ITA 125/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.123,124, 125,126,127,128 & 129/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20,2020-21 & 2021-22) K V Shetty & Company, Vs. I.T.O Tds, #1, College Road, Managalore, N.H.66, Tds Range-Panaji, Kumta-581343, Mangalore-Cr Uttara Kannada, Building, Annexe, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk8375K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS u/sec234E for delay in filling the quarterly return by the assessee. Aggrieved by the A.O. order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee

KV SHETTY AND COMPANY,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PANAJI

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

ITA 123/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.123,124, 125,126,127,128 & 129/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20,2020-21 & 2021-22) K V Shetty & Company, Vs. I.T.O Tds, #1, College Road, Managalore, N.H.66, Tds Range-Panaji, Kumta-581343, Mangalore-Cr Uttara Kannada, Building, Annexe, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk8375K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS u/sec234E for delay in filling the quarterly return by the assessee. Aggrieved by the A.O. order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee

KV SHETTY AND COMPANY,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TDS RANGE, PANAJI

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

ITA 129/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.123,124, 125,126,127,128 & 129/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20,2020-21 & 2021-22) K V Shetty & Company, Vs. I.T.O Tds, #1, College Road, Managalore, N.H.66, Tds Range-Panaji, Kumta-581343, Mangalore-Cr Uttara Kannada, Building, Annexe, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk8375K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS u/sec234E for delay in filling the quarterly return by the assessee. Aggrieved by the A.O. order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee

KV SHETTY AND COMPANY,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TDS RANGE, PANAJI

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

ITA 124/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.123,124, 125,126,127,128 & 129/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20,2020-21 & 2021-22) K V Shetty & Company, Vs. I.T.O Tds, #1, College Road, Managalore, N.H.66, Tds Range-Panaji, Kumta-581343, Mangalore-Cr Uttara Kannada, Building, Annexe, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk8375K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS u/sec234E for delay in filling the quarterly return by the assessee. Aggrieved by the A.O. order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee

KV SHETTY AND COMPANY,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TDS RANGE, PANAJI

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

ITA 128/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.123,124, 125,126,127,128 & 129/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20,2020-21 & 2021-22) K V Shetty & Company, Vs. I.T.O Tds, #1, College Road, Managalore, N.H.66, Tds Range-Panaji, Kumta-581343, Mangalore-Cr Uttara Kannada, Building, Annexe, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk8375K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS u/sec234E for delay in filling the quarterly return by the assessee. Aggrieved by the A.O. order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee

KV SHETTY AND COMPANY,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TDS RANGE, PANAJI

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

ITA 126/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.123,124, 125,126,127,128 & 129/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 2019-20,2020-21 & 2021-22) K V Shetty & Company, Vs. I.T.O Tds, #1, College Road, Managalore, N.H.66, Tds Range-Panaji, Kumta-581343, Mangalore-Cr Uttara Kannada, Building, Annexe, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk8375K (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS u/sec234E for delay in filling the quarterly return by the assessee. Aggrieved by the A.O. order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee

DINKAR KASHIMATH PATIL,MARCELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-W-1(3),PANAJI, PANAJI

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

ITA 10/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.10/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Vs National Faceless H.No.322/3,Ganpatiwada, Assessment Centre, . Near Graceland,Khandola, Delhi. Marcela, Ponda-403107, . Goa. Pan/Gir No. Ajjpp9976E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144Section 194I

TDS was deducted under section 194IA of the Act The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. And further notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued to furnish the details. Since, no explanations/details were filed, the AO considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions

DEMELLO TELEPOWER PRIVATE LIMITED,GOA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GOA

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

ITA 211/PAN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.211/Pan/2024 (A.Y.2023-24 ) Demello Telepower Pvt Ltd, Vs Acit-Circle 1(1), H.No.240,Cotulvaddo, Aaykar Bhavan, . Saligao-403511, Edc Complex, Goa Patto Plaza, Panjim-403001, Goa. Pan .No.Aadcd6928L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 199

TDS credit to the extent of Rs.85,57,839/- under section 199 of the Act r.w.r 37B of the IT Rules with the workingss that the receipts offered to tax in the return of income filed is lower than the gross receipts as per form.no.26AS and the order was passed on 9.01.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assesse

PENTAIR WATER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VERNA vs. JCIT, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

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

ITA 76/PAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Jcit, Margao Range, L-52-55, Verna Industrial Margao, Goa. Estate, Phase-Ii, Verna, Salcette, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8856 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Agrawal, Fca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji, Dated 16.03.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Agrawal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 154Section 234BSection 37Section 40

TDS on amounts which is not paid and payee is not is not known. It is requested that relief be allowed to the appellant.” 3.1 Considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order passed by the AO, the ld. CIT(A) held as follows:- “6.3 I have gone through the appellant's submission and it is noticed that

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 73/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Hegde, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 205

natural justice, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 195 of the Act is not applicable consequently the appellant cannot be held as an assessee in default as per the provisions of section 201 [1] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

ITA 390/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

For Appellant: Ms Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

nature of salary, that the same is not taxable in the hands of the employee and no TDS has been deducted thereon and by virtue of the non-taxability and non- deduction of TDS thereon, it cannot be treated as an ascertained liability on account of employee emoluments. 4) The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the section

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

nature of non-compliance, statement of assessee branch manager recorded u/s 131 of the Act and submission filed by the assessee in response to show cause & other notices, the Ld. AO u/s 201(1) of the Act held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from payment/credit of interest to its customers/clients etc., under two categories

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

nature of non-compliance, statement of assessee branch manager recorded u/s 131 of the Act and submission filed by the assessee in response to show cause & other notices, the Ld. AO u/s 201(1) of the Act held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from payment/credit of interest to its customers/clients etc., under two categories

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

nature of non-compliance, statement of assessee branch manager recorded u/s 131 of the Act and submission filed by the assessee in response to show cause & other notices, the Ld. AO u/s 201(1) of the Act held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for failure to deduct TDS from payment/credit of interest to its customers/clients etc., under two categories

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 57/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 56/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 55/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory