← All Phrases

“first appeal”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A5,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for first appeal is CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556), cited in 135 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on first appeal

CIT v. Union Tyres
240 ITR 556 · 1999 · High Court
135
citing judgments

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court
59
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate a new legal ground for the first time, even if not raised in earlier appellate proceedings, provided its omission was neither willful nor unreasonable.

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.
1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

A decree or proceeding initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, void ab initio, and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including in collateral proceedings or for the first time on appeal, as a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent.

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar
74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A tribunal can exercise its discretion to admit an additional ground of appeal, even if raised for the first time, provided it considers the facts and circumstances of the case.

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.
96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT
373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 195/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.2627/िद"ी/2013(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1695 और 1696/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2009-10 और 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain & Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 80I

deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, reallocated advertisement expenses, professional charges, directors meeting fee and directors travelling expenses to eligible projects. In First appeal, the CIT(A) upheld findings of the AO in allocating expenditure on pro rata basis in the ratio of sales. However, the CIT(A) granted

M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2627/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.2627/िद"ी/2013(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1695 और 1696/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2009-10 और 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain & Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 80I

deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, reallocated advertisement expenses, professional charges, directors meeting fee and directors travelling expenses to eligible projects. In First appeal, the CIT(A) upheld findings of the AO in allocating expenditure on pro rata basis in the ratio of sales. However, the CIT(A) granted

Laxmi Land Developers P. Ltd, Indore vs. ITO-1(3), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and

ITA 778/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshilaxmi Land Developers Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd, 1(3), Vs. 401-Atower, Indore 6/2 South Tukoganj, Indore

Section 143Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

being initiated separately on this point. Addition:- Rs.1,67,26,884/-“ 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee. 2.6 That

Society for Information Technology Development, Bhopal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 696/IND/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisociety For Information Nfac, बनाम/ Technology Development, Delhi Vs. S-209 Raksha Tower, Huzur, Bhopal

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

dated 24.09.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated

DCIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Mahendra Gope, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 94/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Shri V. Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT

Kishan Ram Vishnoi, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned

ITA 404/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jun 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147

Date of Pronouncement 10.06.2025 आदेश/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, AM: The captioned two appeals are filed by assessee against two separate orders of first-appeal, both dated 24.08.2023 and both passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders ... sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 3. The grounds raised in these appeals are identical except change of figures, hence the grounds of first appeal being ITA No. 403/Ind/2023 are only re-produced below for reference: “01. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT- Appeals

Kishan Ram Vishnoi, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned

ITA 403/IND/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jun 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147

आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: The captioned two appeals are filed by assessee against two separate orders of first-appeal, both dated 24.08.2023 and both passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders ... sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 3. The grounds raised in these appeals are identical except change of figures, hence the grounds of first appeal being ITA No. 403/Ind/2023 are only re-produced below for reference: “01. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT- Appeals

Mr Rajeshkumar Motilal Jeshwal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms and with the liberty granted

ITA 6693/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 250

decide this appeal as ex-parte. 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 280 days in filing of first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, on which the Assessee had claimed that Assessment order was served on the Assessee, at his old address

Shri Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, Anjar Kutch vs. The Addl. CIT, NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 220/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 269Section 269SSection 270ASection 69A

application of mind as learned appellate authority has merely reiterated allegations of notice and confirmed assessment order without considering submissions of Appellant made in first appeal, evidence on record and provisions of law. 2. That Impugned Order dated March 27, 2023 does not provide reasons in support of the findings ... Impugned Order dated March 27, 2023 in utter disregard of principles of natural justice wherein without discussing grounds taken by the Appellant in the first appeal, the Id. The Impugned Order cannot be termed as a speaking order and passed to the foundation of the principles of natural justice

T K Prasad, Thrissur vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Thrissur

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

ITA 673/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 153CSection 69

gold manufacturing business. The assessee had given different stories, one at the time of search and another story at the time of the first appeal and another story before us. It shows that the explanations given by the assessee is not a genuine one and therefore the same could

Anil Kumar Talwar Ms Seth J N Bansi Lal Thalwar 8-9, Amrit Colony, Haibowal Khurd Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 37/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 132ASection 153ASection 69A

made addition on the basis of loose slip on the ground that few of the entries were accepted by the assessee. During first appeal, the assessee stated that these notings were mere estimate made by the assessee for the purpose of proposed marriage of his daughter since the same contained

Sh. Ramesh Chand, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 280/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

assessee earned bank interest of Rs.0.41 Lacs which was also added to the income of the assessee. Though the assessee contested the assessment in first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. Form the records

Thakur Fitness World Private Limited, Phillaur, Jalandhar vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - Jalandhar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 445/ASR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Chopra (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal- Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

this regard. Consequently, Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. 3. During first appeal, the assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings. The assessee pointed out that it had furnished cash book for financial year

Munnalal, Kajlana, Molana, Badnagar, Ujjain vs. ITO, Ujjain

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 887/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethmunnalal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Kajlana, Molana, Ujjain Vs. Badnagar, Ujjain

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 253Section 69A

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee. 2.6 That

Vaishali Developers & Builders, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 816/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M.Joshivaishali Developers & Income Tax Officer-1(2), बनाम/ Builders, Bhopal Vs. 240 Mp Nagar Zone-I, Bhopal (Pan:Aacfv7638P) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

Date of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.06.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 20.09.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Chennai, [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order ... order, the AO passed fresh assessment-order dated 25.02.2016 again denying the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) to assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before ITAT. Accordingly, this is 2nd round

Anand Agrawal, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 1 Harda, Harda

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 793/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshianand Agrawal, Income Tax Officer-1, बनाम/ A-104, Siddharth Lake Harda Vs. City, Raisen Road, Anand Nagar, Bhopal

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69

dated 27.03.2015 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.3 That

C.I. Finlease Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 396/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: C.1. Finlease Private Limited, Bhopal (PAN: AABCC6164B)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.06.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 23.01.2017 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... previous counsel in filing assessee’s appeal. Ld. AR submitted that the previous counsel did not even make appearance before CIT(A) in first-appeal which has led to passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A). Ld. AR carried us to the above affidavit of previous counsel to demonstrate

Bhupendra Sharma HUF, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(2(3), Noida

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

ITA 127/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roybhupendra Sharma Huf Vs. Cit(A) Nfac E-9, Sector-41, Noida Delhi – 110001 Uttar Pradesh- 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaghb3664P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 263

present case under appeal is that of a regular assessment order which has been passed by the AO where in the first appeal, the assessee has made no compliance before the CIT(A) and also claimed that the AO did not P a g e | 4 Bhupendra Sharma

Prime Mineral Exports Private Limited (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), Panaji vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 3/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

For Appellant: Mr Nishant Thakkar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M. Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 41(1)Section 4I

held by the appellant as attributable to an indirect expenditure in earning such exempt dividend income from its investment. When this disallowance escalated in first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) solidified the applicability of provisions and countenanced the disallowance on equivalent rationale founded by Ld. AO. ITAT-Panaji Page ... towards indirect expenditure, which the tax authorities have rightly done. For the reasons the disallowance made in the assessment and sustained in first appeal remained flawless, therefore the same need to be sustained in the present appeal too. 5.8 In dismantling alternative plea of the appellant to consider only investments

Mohar Singh Gour, Bhopal vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

ITA 650/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253

said assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee