← 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)

Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan

ITA 1697/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 1697/मुं/2018("न.व.2010-11) Shri Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, C/O. Suresh N. Otwani, 305, 3Rd Floor, Adamji Building, 413, Katha Bazar, Mumbai- 400 009 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Abfpr-8942-L बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421 301. : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

levying penalty of Rs.21,92,670/- was passed by the Assessing Officer on 27/08/2015. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the order levying penalty. The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of assessee, hence, the present appeal. 4. Shri Hoshang B. Irani representing the Department vehemently

Gulshan Mohd Arif Tase, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3242/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 3242/मुं/2017("न.व.2012-13) Gulshan Mohd. Arif Tase, Gulshan Bungalow, Mira Bhayander Road, Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane – 401 107. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Adkpt-5999-C बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer , Ward 2(4), 6Th Floor, Room No.8, A-Wing Ashar It Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane(W) – 400 604 : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 54BSection 54F

extent of capital gains earned on sale of capital asset i.e. Rs. 2,54,24,000/-. The assessee assailed the addition in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer, hence, the present appeal. No material is brought on record by the assessee

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Lld, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2076/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

order of the AO and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), the Assessee contended that the depreciation claimed by the Assessee was according to the valuation of the assets

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2075/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

order of the AO and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), the Assessee contended that the depreciation claimed by the Assessee was according to the valuation of the assets

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2074/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

order of the AO and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), the Assessee contended that the depreciation claimed by the Assessee was according to the valuation of the assets

Ahalya Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 274/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

being heard to the assessee and after hearing the assessee, to decide the appeal on merit. The assessee is directed to prosecute its appeal before CIT(A) diligently. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Merck Performance Materials Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Appellant challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as Assessee‟s claim on merits. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessment Order and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant/Assessee is now in appeal before us against the order passed

Bhushan Logistics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2480/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 40

Rs.10,87,826 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to NBFCs. 4. In appeal before CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and submitted that if NBFCs have paid income ... disallowed the amount of salary of Rs. 9,60,0000 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. In appeal before CIT(A), assessee submitted that salary was paid to the Directors of the assessee company and the Directors had offered the same in the return of income filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai vs. Rihen Harshad Mehta, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4097/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle - 8(3) V. Shri Rihen Harsahad Mehta 1608/1609, Prasad Chambers 6Th Floor, Room No. 659 Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Affpm9223F (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Shri Ajay Chandra Assessee By : Shri Nitesh S. Joshi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 69A

base note the peak credit as appearing in the bank account as on March, 2006. When the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A)-50, Ld.CIT(A) by relying on the decision taken by his predecessor in the AY 2006-07 gave relief to the assessee and now revenue

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1145/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

order dated 29.05.2019 levied penalty u/s 271B of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 10. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 11. Aggrieved with CIT(A) order dated 26.03.2021 the assessee has preferred an appeal before your

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1144/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

order dated 29.05.2019 levied penalty u/s 271B of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 10. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 11. Aggrieved with CIT(A) order dated 26.03.2021 the assessee has preferred an appeal before your

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1143/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

order dated 29.05.2019 levied penalty u/s 271B of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 10. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 11. Aggrieved with CIT(A) order dated 26.03.2021 the assessee has preferred an appeal before your

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1142/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

order dated 29.05.2019 levied penalty u/s 271B of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 10. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 11. Aggrieved with CIT(A) order dated 26.03.2021 the assessee has preferred an appeal before your

Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-National Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 1141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

order dated 29.05.2019 levied penalty u/s 271B of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 10. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 11. Aggrieved with CIT(A) order dated 26.03.2021 the assessee has preferred an appeal before your

Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle -12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 76/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Circle – 12(3)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cts 156, D.B. House Yashodham Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai -400063 Pan: Aafcm6714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor Department By Shri Neha Thakur

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 25A

impact or is in any manner concerned /connected with computation of House Property income. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and The Ld CIT (A) has upheld the action of the AO . The Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO in respect

Hdfc Bank Ltd. (As Successor of Lord Krishna Bank), Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands disposed off with the aforesaid directions

ITA 753/MUM/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Cit(A) Was Filed In The Name Of Centurion Bank Of Punjab Limited. This Appeal Has Been Disposed Off Ex-Parte By The Cit(A) Vide The Order Impugned In Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

order 31.12.2007 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since Lord Krishna Bank Limited was merged with Centurial Bank of Punjab Limited, appeal before CIT(A) was filed in the name of Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited. This appeal has been disposed off ex-parte by the CIT ... outset, made a submission that the case be remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposing off the issues on merits as the appeal before CIT(A) has been disposed of ex-parte. He submitted that the Appellant herein had not received any communication or notice in respect

D.C.I.T.-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3627/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22

income from closing stock, and (b) Disallowance of INR 1,05,63,033/- in respect of direct cost and material consumed. 4. In appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 30.03.2016, the addition of INR 3,15,79,936/- was deleted by the CIT(A), While the ground ... granting relief to the assessee followed the decision of assessee‟s group case in Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2010-11 in appeal no. CIT(A)-24/ACIT-15(2)(1)/IT-435/2015-16 allowed relief to the assessee, which have been confirmed by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal as referred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Shri. B K Kanakaraju, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2023/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 148Section 153ASection 45

held to be protective assessment. 4. The CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the ground on which the HUF had filed appeal before CIT(A)-4, Bengaluru. 5. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the merits and quantification of the addition made. 6. For these

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai
Section 132

provisions u/s. 69A of the Act. 21 ITA NOs. 6309/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Ashok R Ruia 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him. The same are reproduced below: - “15.0 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

Rs.1,07,08,29,430/- and Rs.3,26,35,18,820/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee proposed to file an appeal before CIT(A) as against the forum of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the said assessment order. Thereafter, the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C