“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)

M/S. Firmenich Aromatics Production India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6116/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 94C

Thus, making addition of balance amount of INR 3,86,58,463/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried this issue in appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the Appellant holding as under: “4.2.5 I have considered the material available on the records ... claimed by the Appellant as Revenue expenditure and capitalized the same as capital work-in-progress. 21. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) on this issue. Before CIT(A) it was contended on behalf of the ITA. No. 6116/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Appellant that the Appellant

Sambros Tex Global Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle I, Coimbatore

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

ITA 725/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathyanarayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

from record and rectified the mistake by making addition of this Rs.99.31 lakh to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4.1 The CIT(A) simpliciter confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- “7.1 I have gone through the order

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Venture Lighting India Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 3171/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

submit any evidence except the break-up of commission paid and hence, the AO disallowed the entire commission. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The assessee before CIT(A) submitted the details of commission paid i.e., agreement, payment of commission through banking channels, deduction of TDS on this commission ... Rs.89.11, thereby he added the differential amount of Rs.4,13,87,867/- to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 6.1 The CIT(A) noted that the buyback of shares does not attract the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, because

K. Ramalingam, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-I(3), Salem

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

ITA 2916/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

234C 41,403 1,15,425 74,022 Total 18,15,513 44,90,065 26,74,552 Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against charging / enhancing the interest under these provisions, but the CIT(A) confirming charging of interest. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

G.Prasanna Venkatesan, Coimbatore vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1973/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 45(5)Section 68

additional investment on conversion of gold by invoking the provisions of section 45(5) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO and directed the AO to assess the capital gain by taking sum of Rs.1

Corp Circle-1(2), Chennai vs. Cccl-Edac Energy Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 3223/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3223/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 13 The Dcit, Cccl-Edac Energy Ltd., Corporate Circle 1(2), Vs. 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaecc 0167F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Chennai In Ita No.264/Cit(A)-1/2014-15 Dated 24.08.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2014. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By Ao On Retention Money Held By Contractee. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Two Effective Grounds:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case That Retention Money Held By Contractees Of The Assessee Having Been Excluded From The Computation Of Total Income, The Claim Of Expenditure Retention Money Payable To Its Sub-Contractors Can Only Be Allowable On Payment & Not On Accrual.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Tarun, Advocate

Section 143(3)

accrual. This is precisely the case of Revenue, now before us. Accordingly, the AO added the same. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) relying on assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14 i.e., immediately next assessment year allowed the claim of assessee

Universal Music India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National Faceless Apeal Centre (NFAC), Dehi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 945/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.945/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Plot No.6-62, Block G, Bkc (Opp. Trident Hotel) Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaacp-1985-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikash Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘ The Cit(A) ] Dated 25/03/2021, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Four Grounds. Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Are General In Nature. The Grievance Of Assessee In Ground No. 3 & 4 Of Appeal Is:

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. GurjarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

written off the assessee has mentioned “Nil”. 3.2 Aggrieved against the aforesaid disallowances made by Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Initially, the first appeal was fixed for hearing before the CIT(A) in physical mode. Subsequently, the appeal was transferred to National Faceless

M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3 (2), Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

alia, the aforesaid disallowance of INR 2,96,19,67,058/- and INR 7,86,10,866/-. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) on this issue. It was contended by the Assessee before CIT(A), that the disallowance of INR 70,86,10,866/- was made

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4322/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

short term capital losses. 11 ITA No. 4322/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) C.O. NO. 287& 288/MUM/2017 M/s. Raymond Limited 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A)- 6, Mumbai and after considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee in this regard

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2218/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Section 14A

Anitha Amarnath, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1, Chennai

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

ITA 3171/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Central Bank Rental 926411 DHF Floating 330772 HDFC 600528420 294736 HDFC 352041158 1108318 HDFC NRP 374628 OD Loan 492834 6086345 Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO and also noted that the assessee failed to discharge her onus to prove

ACIT Circle 1, Nagercoil vs. D.Harris Nadar & Co, Kanyakumari

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

ITA 1953/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 145A

thereby excess stock or differential stock of Rs.14,83,36,578/- was added to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition made by AO and noted that there

M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. The Dy CIT 1(1)

ITA 1039/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

allocating the common expenses against the profits derived from the respective undertakings. 33.2 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in allocating the HO expenses on the basis of the turnover of the respective undertakings. 34 Before us, the Sr. ld counsel for the assessee ... reduced from the profit of business and only from the balance profit, deduction under section 80HH and 80I was allowed @ 20%. In appeal the CIT(A) allowed part relief aggrieved by which, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9.2 After hearing both the parties, we find that this

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

r.w.s 153A of the Act which is the subject matter of proceedings u/s 263, is already in appeal before CIT(A)-19 chennai as to the legal validity of the order passed in the absence of incriminating documents found in the course of search. The decision to be rendered

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cactus Communication Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟). 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order. The CIT(A) rejected the challenged mounted by the Appellant against the selection of Appellant by TPO as tested party

Tom Thomas, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (CPC), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed” (Emphasis Supplied)

ITA 20/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani V. Divgankar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 90Section 90(2)

Section 154 of the Act which was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the CIT(A). 6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed off the appeal vide order, dated 22.11.2021, holding as under: “5.3 The claim of the appellant was duly considered

Indoco Remidies Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1698/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj

Section 143(3)

dated 15.04.2021 at total income of INR.73,01,06,689/-. Being aggrieved by ITA.No.1698/MUM/2022 Assessment Year.2018-19 Indoco Remidies Limited the Appellant filed appeal before CIT(A) which was disposed off vide order, dated 22.12.2021, without disposing off any of the grounds raised in the Appeal. Copy of the order

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited(Successor to Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2154/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

relation to stock-in-trade and added the same to the work-in- progress. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 29.06.2022 decided the issue in favour of the Appellant. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT ... Housing Pvt Ltd. (formerly known as Lodha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.) for A.Y. 2014- 15. In my appeal order in the said case in appeal No. CIT(A), Mumbai-49/10582/2016-17 dated 20/05/2021, had discussed this issue in detail and held that the assessee was not eligible to claim this expenditure

M/S. Ojasvi Motor Finance Pvt Ltd, Chhennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 72/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

whose share investments were statedly held were all un-listed companies based at Kolkata and many share the same address. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessees came in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.70-72, 128 & 129/Chny/2022