← 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

Parveen Goyal, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jagraon

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 659/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.659/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Parveen Goyal Ito बनाम/ Flat No. 506-E, Gold Link Apartments Ward-1 Vs. Partap Singh Wala, Ludhiana-141008 Jagraon-142026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abwpg-2721-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Gaurav Sharma (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29-03-2024 In The Matter Of A Rectification Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 154 Of The Act On 06-01-2022. In The Rectification Order, Ld. Ao Has Re-Computed Interest As Payable By The Assessee U/S 234A. The Assessee Has Remained Non-Compliant During First Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 154Section 234A

rectification order, Ld. AO has re-computed interest as payable by the assessee u/s 234A. The assessee has remained non-compliant during first appeal. 2. During hearing, it transpires that first appeal against quantum addition is already pending before Ld. CIT(A). Considering the fact that the same would have

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. M/S Industrial Mineral Co., 100% Eou, Tuticorin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 529/CHNY/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

Disallowance of Land refilling / environment expenses Rs.5.11 Crores 6. Disallowance of bogus expenses Rs.9.87 Crores Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned additions in first appeal. 3. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected legal grounds qua applicability of 4th Proviso to Sec.153A and held that the contents

Industrial Mineral Co, 100%Eou, Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 390/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

Disallowance of Land refilling / environment expenses Rs.5.11 Crores 6. Disallowance of bogus expenses Rs.9.87 Crores Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned additions in first appeal. 3. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected legal grounds qua applicability of 4th Proviso to Sec.153A and held that the contents

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ludhiana vs. Mohinder Pal, Ludhiana

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 550/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward No.3(1), Shri Mohinder Pal बनाम/ Rishi Nagar (Prop. M/S Jippy Textiles) Ludhiana.141001. 911, Street No.2, Vs. Sekhkewal Road, Ludhiana 141008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abjpp-5048-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Bhalla (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Sharma (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.195.85 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao U/S 68. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

which could be considered to be genuine and accordingly, the remaining deposit of Rs.195.85 Lacs was added u/s 68. 3. During first appeal, the assessee vehemently assailed the conclusion of Ld. AO and cited various judicial pronouncements to support its contentions. The Ld. CIT(A), applying the decision of Chandigarh