← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. M.B. Patil Construction Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2078/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

Rs.49,59,14,779/- and (f) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of Rs.2,73,36,424/- 3. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of agricultural income of Rs.6 ... total income of the assessee company as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer. 14. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the above addition. It is this order against which revenue is in appeal before

M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2058/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

Rs.49,59,14,779/- and (f) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of Rs.2,73,36,424/- 3. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of agricultural income of Rs.6 ... total income of the assessee company as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer. 14. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the above addition. It is this order against which revenue is in appeal before

Swapan Bhttacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 242/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in not adjudicating the said ground of appeal as taken by the appellant in the First Appeal. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, change and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before hearing

Kellogg Alumni Club, Delhi vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 721/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2023-24 Kellogg Alumni Club, Vs. Dy. Director Of Income G-1, F/F, 10 Central Av., Tax Cpc, Maharani Bagh, Bangaluru New Delhi – 110 065 Karnataka (Pan: Aactk1018J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Itba/Apls/250/2024-25/1071064606(1) Order Dated 10.12.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, Facts Are That Asssessee Filed Return Of Income On 30.07.2023, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 6,71,350/-. Ao Accepted The Said Income & Determined The Tax At Rs. 2,01,405/-. As Per The Assessee, No Surcharge On The Same Was Chargeable Under The Act. However, The Cpc Charged Surcharge At 37% On The Tax Payable. Ao Has Given Consequential Effect On Health & Education Cess, Interest U/S. 234B & S. 234C Of The Act. In View Of The Intimation, The Assessee Is An Aop & Therefore, The Tax Is Chargeable At Maximum Marginal Rate Which Also Includes Surcharge At Maximum Marginal Rate. According To The Assessee, It Being

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 234BSection 234C

Finance Act of the relevant year, hence, the CPC has 3 | P a g e correctly charged surcharge on the tax @37%, and in first appeal the same was rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), which do not require any interference on my part, hence, I affirm the action

Kaveri Devaraj, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Salem

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

ITA 347/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 347/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kaveri Devaraj, Income Tax Officer, No.157, Prop.: Kavin Silvers, Vs. Ward 1(3), Solampallam Line, Salem. Sooramangalam, Salem - 636 005. [Pan: Bjnpd-3441-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act when it has been judicially settled that SBN’s are legal tender till 31.12.2016. 4. First appeal is dismissed for non-compliance to notices. In view of the above facts appeal filing fee of Rs.500 is paid. In connection with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle-1(2), Chennai vs. Jacaranda Properties Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3337/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3337/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S Jacaranda Properties Private Limited बनाम/ Central Circle -1(2), 12, South Mada Street, Chennai. Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Vs. Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcj-1448-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Sanjeev Aditya (Ca) – Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-05-2025

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Aditya (CA) – Ld. AR
Section 147

were not existing. Accordingly, the WIP was reduced to the extent of aggregate payment of Rs.318.32 Lacs as paid to these entities. 3. During first appeal, the assessee, inter-alia, contended that the payments were made to these entities in the course of purchase of land as they were power

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2984/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

entire sale consideration received by the assessee, as revealed from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessment order for the block period was confirmed. 5. The assessee was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that only 15% of the total

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2983/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए 'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2982/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and revealed from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessm levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessment order for the block ent order for the block period was confirmed. period

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2981/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

entire sale consideration received by the assessee, as revealed from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessment order for the block period was confirmed. 5. The assessee was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that only 15% of the total

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2980/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

entire sale consideration received by the assessee, as revealed from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessment order for the block period was confirmed. 5. The assessee was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that only 15% of the total

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2979/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

entire sale consideration received by the assessee, as revealed from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessment order for the block period was confirmed. 5. The assessee was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that only 15% of the total

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2978/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

entire sale consideration received by the assessee, as revealed from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessment order for the block period was confirmed. 5. The assessee was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that only 15% of the total

Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2972/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

entire sale consideration received by the assessee, as revealed from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessment order for the block period was confirmed. 5. The assessee was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that only 15% of the total

Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2971/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

entire sale consideration received by the assessee, as revealed from the materials recovered, as the undisclosed income and levied tax on it. In first appeal, the assessment order for the block period was confirmed. 5. The assessee was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that only 15% of the total

Lakshmi Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6607/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Lakshmi Rao Ito – Ward – 22(1)(4) (Now Ito-Ward-22(1)(1) A3102 Lodhabellissimo Piramal Chambers Off: N.M. Joshi Marg Vs Mumbai – 400012 Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400013 Maharashtra Maharashtra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271

India. The Assessing Officer supplied copy of assessment order to the assessee only along with his communication dated 13.11.2020. So the time period filing first appeal would start form 13.11.2020 only. When the assessee has filed the appeal, was a severe Covid-19 Pandemic,wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court

Sherdil Nath, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 1505/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

1 ITA No. 488 & ors /DEL/2024 Krishan Kumar Makrania &ors Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI

Sherwani Ishtiaq Ahmed, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay. The assessment order was passed on 13-12-2019 whereas the first appeal was filed on 15-12-2021. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits which ... case before Ld. AO. Further, the substantial delay fall in lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, the delay in first appeal should have been condoned. Nevertheless, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file

Beant Collage of Engineering and Tecnology, Gurdas Pur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. PN Arora (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(1)

made adjustment of Rs.415.64 Lacs. The assessee failed to appear during first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of approx. 6 months. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has pleaded for adjudication of appeal ... opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. CIT(A). Further, considering the status of the assessee, the delay in first appeal should have been condoned. Nevertheless, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file

Priyadarshani Mahila Co-Op Cr. Society Ltd, Belagavi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 32/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 032/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Priyadarshani Mahila Co-Op. Society Ltd. At Post: Kognoli, Ta.: Nippani Dist. Belagavi. Pan : Aabap2582L . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Sureshkumar C.B.[‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 24Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

DCIT, CPC ITA Nos.032/PAN/2025 AY: 2019-20 3.3 Aggrieved by denial of deduction and the summary assessment, the assessee contested the dispute in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3.4 Dissatisfied by the actions of tax authorities below the assessee instituted the present appeal with the sole & substantive ground