← 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)

Hathway Investment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -12, Mumbai

ITA 1599/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1599/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Hathway Investments Private Limited. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corner Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054. Pan: Aaach-1675-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-12, Mumbai, Room No.127, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings enhanced disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to Rs.1,82,47,992/-. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A), inter-alia assailing the enhancement of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. While computing disallowance the Assessing Officer excluded the investment held

A. B. Nagi Reddy, Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle-2, Thane

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1486/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 143(3)Section 250

Tax/VAT Department. The bank accounts and properties of the Appellant were attached. Since the Appellant was extremely disturbed, he could not pursue the appeal before CIT(A). Thereafter, the Appellant was also declared as a defaulter by Bank of Maharashtra and the properties of the Appellant were attached ... 1486/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Appellant has been facing difficult times since 2013 and therefore, he has neither been able to pursue the appeal before CIT(A) nor was able to file the appeal against the order passed by CIT(A). He further submitted that an application for admission

Shri. Ibrahim Kaluseth Agewan, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed

ITA 879/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.879/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2011-12) Shri Ibrahim Kalusethagewan Usman Tyre Services, A-55, Opp.Sion Goods Yard, Lbs Road, Sion(West), Mumbai – 400 022. Pan: Agupa-0959-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(1)(5) Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Mr.R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.R.A.Dhyani

Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1.00 lac in respect of unproved expenses. 4.3 Against the assessment order dated 14/03/2014 the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee filed certain documents and furnished details. The CIT(A) sought remand report. After considering the same

Aveo Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (1)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in terms of paragraph 9

ITA 6852/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak
Section 23(1)(c)

taking rate of INR 35.67 per Sq. Ft. per month as average rent for the period commencing from 19.10.2012 to 31.03.2013. In appeal before CIT(A), the Appellant, relying upon copy of approvals granted by Government Department/Authorities, the Appellant pointed out that the Lessee had obtained approval for commissioning drawings

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

surcharge) was deemed to be the tax payable. ITA. No. 5259 & 4895/Mum/2007 Assessment Year: 2004-05 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee by partly allowing the appeal. 5. Now, the Assessee as well as the Revenue are before ... Assessing Officer on the ground that the same were capital in nature since the same provided enduring benefit to the Assessee. 8.2. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition holding the expenditure to be business expenditure of revenue nature incurred for smooth running of business of the Assessee

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

surcharge) was deemed to be the tax payable. ITA. No. 5259 & 4895/Mum/2007 Assessment Year: 2004-05 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) granted relief to the Assessee by partly allowing the appeal. 5. Now, the Assessee as well as the Revenue are before ... Assessing Officer on the ground that the same were capital in nature since the same provided enduring benefit to the Assessee. 8.2. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition holding the expenditure to be business expenditure of revenue nature incurred for smooth running of business of the Assessee

Atlas Castalloy Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1) (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1505/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

dated 10.01.2019 against which rectification application filed by Appellant was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2019. We note that this issue was raised in appeal before CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the same. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant had offered

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5022/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act dated 29/11/2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before CIT(A). 4 ITA 5021/Mum/2019 ITA 5022/Mum/2019 7. In the appellate proceedings, CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the AO, submissions ... CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and whereas in other grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) has granted relief and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before

M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5021/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act dated 29/11/2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before CIT(A). 4 ITA 5021/Mum/2019 ITA 5022/Mum/2019 7. In the appellate proceedings, CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the AO, submissions ... CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and whereas in other grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) has granted relief and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before

M/S. Sree Minerals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

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

ITA 719/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)

prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. 2. Initially the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 154 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. Though the said order ... served to the assessee on 29.2.2012, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 27.4.2012. The CIT(A) not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him on the reason that assessee not adduced any credible reason for delay in filing appeal before him. He also decided the appeal

M/S. Vijay Steel Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3) (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 91/मुं/2022("न.व.2013-14) M/S. Vijay Steel Corporation Ltd. 2, Sabhapati Bhavan, 19, Meera, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan;Aaacv-3517-E बनाम/ Vs. Acit-13(3)(2). Mumbai : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri Vivek Jani &For Respondent: S/ Shri S.N.Kabra & Mathews
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 68

ld.Counsel for the assessee further pointed that against the addition made under section 68 of the Act the assessee had filed appeal before CIT(A). After being unsuccessful before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee carried the issue in second appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.6928/Mum/2018. The Tribunal vide

Kay Foam Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -2, Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 598/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Section 263 of the Act. The Appellant herein had also challenged the above order, dated 31.12.2017, passed in reassessment proceedings in appeal before CIT(A). ITA. No. 598/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant took us through the Development Agreement ... taxability of the same in the year of sale or transfer in terms of Section 45(2) of the Act in appeal before CIT(A). Whereas in paragraph 2.11 of the letter, dated 25.03.2021, filed by the Appellant in response to show cause notice under Section

ACIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 73

loss of INR 39,36,79,000/- holding the same to be speculative loss. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings as well as the disallowance of set off of losses amounting

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Fincorp Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 385/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Soumen AdakFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 47

subsidiaries of the same holding company and the transaction has not taken place at arm‟s length. 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the Assessee holding that the transfer between two fellow subsidiaries cannot be considered as a transfer between

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Symbol Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee and that by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2221/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

added to the total income of the assessee by the AO. The AO passed final order of assessment, against which the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). To the extent the assessee did not get relief from the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue

M/S. Symbol Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee and that by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2057/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

added to the total income of the assessee by the AO. The AO passed final order of assessment, against which the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). To the extent the assessee did not get relief from the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue

DCIT Circle- 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kohinoor Planet Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

well as while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as additions made by the AO on merits. The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were valid

Ashwin K. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2060/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(3)Section 50C

agreement and INR 84,00,000/- being the value adopted by the Appellant. 4. Being aggrieved, Appellant carried this issue in appeal before CIT(A) and made following submission before CIT(A). The Appellant contended that the date of transfer of the property should be taken as October/November, 2013 when

Naeemuddin Azimuddin Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4759/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.4759/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) Naeemuddin Azimuddin Shaikh, 2/25, Parlelshwar Society, Shahaji Raje Marg, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057. Pan: Blups-1557-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(4), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C-11, Room No.711, 7Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

utilizing the material purchased from M/s. Rajeshwari Metal Industries. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before CIT(A) was due to the fact that the assessee was under bona-fide impression that the appeal has already been filed

Jp Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 3512/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2014-15) J.P.Morgan Services India Private Limited, Level Nos. 9 To 11, Prism Towers, Mindspace, Link Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 104. Pan: Aabcd-0503-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(1), Room No.509, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Porus Kaka Sr. Advocate With Shri & Divesh Chawla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28/02/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment & Disallowance Made U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka Sr. Advocate with Shri and Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty
Section 14ASection 92C(3)

Rs.17,55,902/- as against suo-motu disallowance of Rs.75,000/- made by the assessee. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid additions, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld the findings of TPO /Assessing Officer on the aforesaid issues. Now, the assessee is in second