“appeal before CIT(A)”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A1,827 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before CIT(A) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before CIT(A)

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.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court

1,372

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

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.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

659

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court

441

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate

53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court

359

citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT

296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court

351

citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Judgments citing appeal before CIT(A)

Oriental Bank of Commerce Ruhs Branch, Jaipur vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 480/JPR/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh SharmaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

proceedings was with respect to order passed under section 201/201(1A) and the order passed under section 201/201(1A) was subject matter of Appeal before CIT(A) at the time of passing order under section 271C. The assessee requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the time order

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 458/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.389 & 458/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 105, Rajshree Building, Maniyara 1(1)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Sheri Na Naka,Mahidharpura, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395003. Civil Hospital, Surat-395001

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

polished diamonds. The ld CIT(A) noted that in that case the AO made disallowance of entire bogus purchase and on first appeal before CIT(A) the disallowances were maintained. However, the Tribunal gave partial relief to the assessee directing to sustain the addition @12% of such bogus purchases

Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 389/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

M/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1241/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V. Cit (A) 5A, Jindal Mansion Delhi Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aadcp7858D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Hiro Rai Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)

instead of Rs. Nil income claimed by the appellant. 6. Aggrieved from the assessment the appellant filed an appeal before CIT(A) challenging the additions made in the assessment order. In the light of above facts, we hereby make following submissions for your Honor's kind consideration: Ground 1 ADDITION

Jajoo Hygiene P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT/DCIT 2(1), Indore

ITA 161/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jajoo Hygiene Pvt. Acit/Dcit, Ltd., 2(1), 304-A, Indore. बनाम/ Subhlabh Residency, Khajrana Chouraha, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadcj 0657 Q Assessee By Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca & Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 288BSection 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

next appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR for assessee argued on the same line of reasoning as made by assessee in first appeal before CIT(A), namely (i) the assessee collected Rs. 20/- per share instead of Rs. 19.23 per share for simplicity; (ii) the difference

Bhagwan Das Rai, Itarsi vs. The ITO Ward-, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 16/IND/2023[22017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Bhagwandas Rai, Ito, M/S.Deva Marketing, Ward-2, बनाम/ Hospital Road

Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

whether the assessee has accepted AO’s finding, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has contested AO’s finding in quantum-appeal before CIT(A) but that appeal is pending as of now. Finding this state, we feel it more appropriate to remand this appeal also to the file

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3, Surat vs. M/S V Square Project, Surat

ITA 75/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.75/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S V Square Project Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat, 206, 2Nd Floor, Shanti Vs Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Arcade, 132Ft Ring Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Ahmedabad-380013 395001 Pan No. Aaifv 1955 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

unexplained cash credit. As Rs. 2,76,00,00/- is already disallowed by him. 4. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para-6.1 of the order

M/S. Halo Technologies and Training Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- TDS (CPC), Ghaziabad

ITA 1770/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: It.

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha NanwaniFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule

Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

opportunity of being heard. The Appellant is directed to file affidavit before the CIT(A) explaining the circumstances leading to the filing of appeal before CIT(A) who shall be at liberty to also decide the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before CIT

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

letter dated 27/02/2015 – Deduction for Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) Expenses 3.3. Against the above Assessment Order, dated 07/05/2015, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide order dated 31/03/2017, partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee. The CIT(A) accepted the additional claim raised ... made transfer pricing addition of INR 2,73,48,125/- by taking arm’s length guarantee fee rate of 2.5%. 4.6. In appeal, the CIT(A) agreed with the Assessing Officer/TPO and concluded that providing corporate guarantee is an international transaction. However, the CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

Ramanuja Peetham, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 198/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.198/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Ramanuja Peetham Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-104-15, Plot No.40, Sector-5 (Exemption Ward) Ttd Kalyanamandapam Road Visakhapatnam Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafts4193P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.A.Aruna, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18 .10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052984661(1) Dated 19.05.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust, Registered U/S 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Had Filed Return Of Income For The A.Y.2016-17 On 09.09.2016, Declaring Nil Income After

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

found eligible for exemption u/s 11. 3. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay before DIT(Exemption), Hyderabad and preferred an appeal before CIT(A). Since the assessee has already filed an application for condonation of delay before the DIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad and since the delay is under

Addl. CIT-(08), New Delhi vs. Sopra India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue thus is dismissed

ITA 1175/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145

year. For such broad reasons, the Assessing Officer disallowed foreign exchange fluctuation loss claimed. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), the assessee broadly reiterated that such losses has arisen in the ordinarily course of business and the losses incurred on valuation of forward

ACIT, Circle- 7(2), New Delhi vs. Dsl Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5946/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer accordingly enhanced the Long Term Capital Gain declared to this extent while framing the assessment order. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4.1 The CIT(A) re-appreciated the factual matrix and found merit in the plea raised by the assessee. The CIT(A) accordingly

Asst CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 258/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act holding the same to be unexplained cash credit, in appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessing Officer had ignored the documents and details filed along with reply

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 112/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.112/Srt/2021 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, 9Th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 Pan No. Aadcd 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

income in respect of Daman Project. 7. Aggrieved by the addition of alleged on-money in respect of both projects, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before PCIT(A) the assessee filed detailed and exhausted written submission. The assessee also furnished a chart which was prepared by Assessing Officer

Max Maintenance Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2209/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 37Section 40

provisions of section 115JB. The reason for rectification was given in the rectification order. Aggrieved by the rectification, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 3. ITA No. 2209/Del/2022 (order u/s 143(1), the facts in brief are the appellant while processing of return of income at CPC, Bangalore

Max Maintenance Limited, New Dehli vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2208/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 37Section 40

Shri Himanshu Lalit Ranka, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 476/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

read with section 147 by making an addition of Rs.1,34,12,795/- under section 69C of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) but made only written submissions

ITO Ward--2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Himanshu Lalit Ranka, Thane

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

ITA 1082/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

M/S. B S R & Co LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Mumbai

ITA 736/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 90

foreign tax credit of INR 51,32,635/- claimed by the Assessee under Section 90 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) 4. against the Assessment Order, dated 26/12/2019, challenging validity of reassessment proceedings as well as disallowance of INR 2,28,27,496/- made