“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)

Solur Vishwanath Bharath, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1269/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2006-07 Shri. Solur Vishwanath Bharath, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.3/2-7, 1St Cross Road, M.C.R. Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Byanna Industrial Estate, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aexpb 3500 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Rs.41,25,123/-.” 7. Against the order of the AO dated 23.12.2016 giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and in so far as the addition of Rs.41,25,123/- is concerned, the same was deleted by the CIT(A) in the impugned

M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income 259, 2Nd Main, 6Th Cross, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Indiranagar, Stage 1, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaece 7259 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the Order dated 29.07.2020. As regards the disallowance made u/s. 43B of the Act of Rs.1,20,58,223, it is submitted that the same has already been disallowed u/s 40 by the assessee in the computation of income, and the disallowance made

DCIT(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Nehru Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7461/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Dilipkumar Shah

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

revenue after allowing expenditure incurred by the assessee on the properties, establishment, planetarium, auditorium and other maintenance expenses. 7. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A)-1, Mumbai. Before Ld.CIT(A) assessee filed detailed submissions and additional grounds of appeal. Ld.CIT(A) asked the Assessing Officer to file

M/S. Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

ITA 946/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R

Section 10BSection 147Section 40

disallowing the claim u/s. 10A of the Act amounting to Rs.13,07,508. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal. 2.1 It was stated that when the assessment order was passed, M/s. Solectron EMS India Ltd. merged with M/s.Centum Electronics Ltd., as per the order

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: 1) Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Guarantee Fees

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

144C(1) was passed by the assessing officer. In response, assessee, vide letter dated 25/04/2013 has submitted that it preferred to file appeal before CIT(A) and has requested to pass final order. Accordingly, the assessing officer passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act on 13/05/2013

ACIT, Cir.-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6402/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: 1) Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Guarantee Fees

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang-2021 Page 11 of 62 17. The Assessee aggrieved by the order of the AO filed appeal before CIT(A). The contentions of the Assessee before the CIT(A) were as follows: 1. Survey action was conducted on 24.2.2005, which was 35 days before

Delfab Global Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6256/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

which is 100% of tax being evaded. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty dated 21/9/2015, the Assessee has preferred an appeal before CIT(A), who after considering the grounds urged thereon, dismissed the appeal vide Order impugned, against which the Assessee has preferred the present Appeal. 6.Heard

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 627/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

ACIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S. Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

Avtec Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

explanation alongwith evidences. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 595 days in filing of appeal before CIT(A) 3 should be condoned. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits. 4. that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars

ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dlf Commercial Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 9227/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the assessment order u/s 143(3)/263 dated 22/12/2018, the assessee company preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was allowed and against the relief allowed by the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. 6.1 The revenue has raised following grounds

M/S. Oridinary Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6719/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 6719/Del/2016 (A.Y 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Ito Ordinary Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Ward-19(2) 13/34, W. E. A Karol Bagh New Delhi New Delhi Aaaco6367K (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. V. P. Gupta, Adv & Sh. Anunav Kumar, Adv Respondent By Sh. Gaurav Pundir Sr. Dr.

Section 153C

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the appeal before CIT(A) was filed by the Company against order dated 19.03.2015 passed by Assessing Officer 4 pursuant to directions of this Tribunal vide order dated ... original order he had determined the commission only with reference to entries with outside the group companies of Rs.18.81 crores. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 07.10.2016 uphold the order of the Assessing Officer without appreciating the correct legal position and the directions

M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S. Najmi, CIT

Section 115W

income declared by the appellant. The addition made to the value of fringe benefits made by assessing officer have been challenged in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has enhanced the taxable Fringe Benefits. The addition by AO/ClT(A) and enhancement by CIT(A) are challenged before the ITAT