← All Phrases

“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)

Naveen Chandra Bhatt, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-71(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2690/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter action of the Ld. CIT(A) is refusing the condonation ... year. Ideally, the appeal should have been filed on 28.01.2020. Income Tax law has provided a period of 30 days for filing appeal before CIT(A). However, in exceptional circumstances and cases where assessee have reasonable cause, due to which he is not able to file appeal within the provided

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 588/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 569/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

M/S. Y.P. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 458/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Y. P. Infrastructure Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., F-213A, 1St Floor, Ward – 27(4) Lado Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacy 2994 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pulkit Saini, Adv. Revenue By Shri T. Kipgen, Cit – D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.10.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

proceedings although not raised earlier. It has further held that the view that tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before CIT(A) is too narrow a view to take of the powers of the tribunal. We further find that the case laws relied upon

Shailendra, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

against the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,84,382/- U/s 271 (1 }(c) against which the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal. Further the assessee filed an appeal before Hon'ble I.TAT. by taking grounds of appeal: GROUNDS OF APPEAL ... Assessee's Submission: That in the above case, the assessment was completed a total income of Rs. 24,87,500/-. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) which was partly allowed by CIT(A). Thereafter the assessee filed appeal before Hon'ble I.TAT. and Hon'ble I.TAT dismiss the appeal

ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, Surat

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

ITA 452/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.452/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, 2(3)(8), Room No.407, 4Th Prop. Of M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Vs. Office No. 401, Floor, H. Centre, Adajan-Hajira Road, No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Adajan, Surat-395009 Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agupj3281A (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

Section 147Section 148

directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], in Appeal No. CIT(A)- 1/10795/2018-19, dated 26.07.2019, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income ... 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

Sangram Ram, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Bikaner

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 120/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

complying to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has preferred an appeal before CIT(A). 4. In the aforesaid order, the AO issued notice to the assessee u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and re-adjudicated the matter

Sangram Ram, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Bikaner

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 119/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

complying to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has preferred an appeal before CIT(A). 4. In the aforesaid order, the AO issued notice to the assessee u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and re-adjudicated the matter

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(6), Surat vs. Shri Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 38/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 21/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Vs. Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2022 09/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

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

Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 21/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Vs. Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2022 09/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

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

Ramakrishna Murali, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

lakhs by way of cash.” Consequently, the AO levied penalty of Rs.164.70 lakhs vide order dated 28.10.2015. 3.1 Against this assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) challenging the penalty order so passed beyond the time limit prescribed in the Act. The CIT(A), NFAC observed that as per acknowledgement

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 172/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

available, the AO accordingly made addition of this Rs.3 crores as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 13. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the assessee is unable to prove the genuineness of transaction

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 171/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

available, the AO accordingly made addition of this Rs.3 crores as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 13. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the assessee is unable to prove the genuineness of transaction

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

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

ITA 170/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

available, the AO accordingly made addition of this Rs.3 crores as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 13. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the assessee is unable to prove the genuineness of transaction

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

nature. According to AO, this is uncertained liability and therefore, disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Now before ... treated as expenses in the hands of ultimate holding company. Therefore, the AO disallowed the claim of assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by treating the expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure. Aggrieved, now assessee

Saigal Seatrade, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21 (3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

disallowance of interest expenses of INR 37,80,959/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed appeal before CIT(A) on the above additions/disallowances. Since the Appellant was not satisfied with the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Appellant preferred the present appeal ... Assessing Officer disallowed the balance amount of INR 37,80,959/- . 6 Assessment Year: 2014-15 11. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) on this issue. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that entire loans and advances were given for properties to be used

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

clause and as per sub-clause (s), total amount disallowable and consequentlydisallowed u/s.36 of the Act was Rs.2,12,833/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the prime-facie adjustment made u/s.143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bangalore by observing in para ... aggrieved by the above charging of tax and denying charging of taxability u/s.115BAA of the Act and charging higher rate of tax filed appeal before CIT(A). 14.1 The CIT(A) uphold the action of AO in charging tax rate @30% and denying the benefit u/s.115BAA

Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 237/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

filed the Audit Report in Form 10B along with Return of Income or before filing the return of income.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO by holding that the return of income was filed by assessee after due date

ACIT -893) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Triple Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43C

under Section 43CA of the Act and disallowance of interest expenditure of INR 1,55,42,291/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee, vide order dated 30.12.2018, by deleting the above addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer ... additional area as per the registered PAAA, the Assessing Officer made aggregate addition at INR 2,18,84,138/-. 12. In appeal before CIT(A) on this issue, it was contended by the Assessee that the Assessing Officer had erred in applying the provisions of Section 43CA

Vertex Spinning Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

256/Mum/218 & 4032/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 was framed on the Assessee under Section 144 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. In appeal before CIT(A), the Assessee produced additional evidence. The relevant extract of the order of CIT(A) dealing with additional evidence read as under