← All Phrases

“National Tax Tribunal”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(29D)59 judgments

The decision most relied on for National Tax Tribunal is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (389 ITR 326), cited in 241 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on National Tax Tribunal

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.

Vardhan Birla v. CIT
204 ITR 312 · 1993 · High Court
22
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an assessee's additional ground of appeal, even if the claim was not made before the Income Tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the additional grounds are legal and based on facts already on record without requiring fresh investigation.

Judgments citing National Tax Tribunal

Prabhakar Jha, Madhubani vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

Anand Surana, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 192/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Surana, Nanesh Kripa, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aosps5275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken ... passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court.” Further, on a careful perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, we find that pursuant to the insertion of “Explanation

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna vs. C.I.T. -1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/PAT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

M/S Banke Bihari Foods (P) Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

M/S. Mukka Protenis Limited, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 433/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, 20[National Tax Tribunal,] the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7893/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7892/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7891/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7890/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 533/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, 47[National Tax Tribunal,] the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.--In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken