“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)

Ashoka Palace Co.Op Hsc Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-31(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2062/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2062/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Ashoka Palace Co-Op. Hsg. Soc.Ltd., Malad East, Makrani Pada Road, Mumbai 400 097. Pan: Aaaaa-9300-N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward-31(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

rectification petition of the assessee was dismissed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 08/09/2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) assailing denial of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act in proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) vide impugned

Uni-Design Jewellery P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Range-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1329/MUM/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya

Section 10ASection 143(3)

vide order, dated 30.12.2008. ITA. No. 1329/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2005-06 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 30.12.2008. However, vide order, dated 25.05.2021, the CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the Appellant in this regard holding that

DCIT, Chennai vs. K.Dhandapani and Co. Ltd., Chengalput

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45

that the loss is only notional loss and a mere provision has been made and hence, he disallowed the same. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claim that

Chakiat Agencies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 1 (3), Chennai

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

ITA 1552/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessment year 2011-12 amounting to Rs.3,51,790/- and in assessment year 2014-15 amounting to Rs.7,58,458/- . Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee in all the three years came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before

Chakiat Agencies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 1 (3), Chennai

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

ITA 1551/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Chakiat Agencies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 1 (3), Chennai

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

ITA 1550/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Kusuma Cashews, Karkala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 511/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

Appeals), Panaji. The assessee's submission has been perused and it is found that the contention does not have any merit, as the appeal before CIT(A) pertain to addition of excess stock of Rs.50,00,000/-. The issue of taxation of excess stock of. Rs.50,00,000/-under section ... read with section 1.15BBE is left unexamined/undecided by the AO, the same is not a subject matter of appeal before CIT(A). In view of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee is not sustainable. 8. Hence, it is held that the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

Assessee by the AO. The DRP gave certain directions. The AO passed final order of assessment against which the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Based on the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the Assessee did not get relief from

Digant Laxmidas Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 622/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh

Section 143(1)Section 5(1)Section 6

Appellant under Section 143(1) of the Act. ITA. No. 622/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4. Being aggrieved the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed. The relevant extract of the order of CIT(A) reads as under: “ 4.3 Merits Of The Case: Section

DCIT Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Vme Precast Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1659/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 40A(3)

this sum of Rs.79,05,835/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.” 4. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) in ITA No.409/14-15/CIT(A)-11 dated 30/03/2016 held that the cash received from its two customers for the purpose

Hampi Expressways Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 895/MUM/2022[2017,-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 199Section 234BSection 234D

terms of Section 199 read with Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 26.12.2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal holding as under: “From

Krishna Pandurang Kobnak, Thane vs. CIT Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed

ITA 337/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ishaan PatkarFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

Section 200A of the Act and levied late filing fee of INR 40,000/- under Section 234E of the Act. The Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is in appeal before us. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material ... while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ktg Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4336/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.4336/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Ito-12 (3) (1), Room No.147A, 1St Floor, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Ktg Developers Pvt. Ltd., Link Komal Co-Op Gh Society, Flat No.3, Plot No.81-A, Linking Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400 054 Pan: Aacck-9929-R ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Singh सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh

Section 68

Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of unproved loans/ share application money u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee assailed the addition in appeal before CIT(A). The assessee furnished fresh evidence during the first appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) accepted the additional evidences in violation of the provisions

Dy CIT (International Taxation), Mumbai vs. Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius) Ltd., Mauritius

ITA 1338/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 74

brought forward Long Term Capital Loss of INR 1,78,94,380/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who allowed the appeal following the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (International Taxation ... losses of the earlier years, thus, declined the set-off of the same against the capital gains for the relevant assessment years. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the A.O. On further appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was fully justified in claiming the carry forward

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1831/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

advance infringes provision of section 11(5) and hence, said amount was liable to be taxed-During pendency of appeal before CIT(A), Commissioner in exercise of his suo-motu power u/s 263 held that in view of violation of Section 11(5) entire income of assessee Trust, ought ... advance infringes provision of section 11(5) and hence, said amount was liable to be taxed-During pendency of appeal before CIT(A), Commissioner in exercise of his suo-motu power u/s. 263 held that, in view of violation of section 11(5), entire income of assesee Trust ought

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1830/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1829/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1828/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Aniruddha N. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), Mumbai

ITA 3924/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

hands of the Assessee in respect of jewellery found/seized during the course of search in the Company. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) challenging the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act on the ground of lack of satisfaction recorded before initiating proceedings under

Anjali A. Malpani, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3917/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C