← 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

Ankita Paliwal, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh

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

ITA 195/AGR/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

hence, the rectification application filed by the assessee u/s 154 was rejected by the AO vide order dated 09.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(Appeals) ,and learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by referring to Rule

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed Form ... year under consideration for some items. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the Learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee did not file Form

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed Form ... year under consideration for some items. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the Learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee did not file Form

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed Form ... year under consideration for some items. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the Learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee did not file Form

Shri Kishor Vasant Chougule, Belagavi vs. The Income Tax Officr, Ward - 1, Nippani

ITA 90/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 090/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kishor Vasant Chougule Prop. Om-Ganesh Cloth & Utensils Centre, Chougule Building, 261, Bazar Lane, Benadi, Belgavi. Pan:Aurpc144Q . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(1)Section 69A

inspire any confidence to the Ld. AO, which resulted into addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Though the matter travelled in first appeal before the Ld. NFAC, but the assessee was indifferent in explaining the nature & source of balance SBN deposits with credible evidences. In the absence

Nanda Filling Station, Sirhind vs. ITO, Ward, Sirhind

ITA 547/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh Sarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 144(1)(b)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

547/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 4 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 01.12.2019 preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(A) under Section 246A of the Act and by impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. 2.6 That the assessee being aggrieved ... that the original assessment order dated 01.12.2019 is an ex-parte order and that the same is under Section 144 of the Act. In first appeal, this original assessment order dated 01.12.2019 was challenged primarily on ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. In addition, it was contended

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

deduction by simply applying 15% mark-up on the cost of production. He, therefore, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. 18. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A), though, observed that the reliance of the Assessing Officer on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

deduction by simply applying 15% mark-up on the cost of production. He, therefore, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. 18. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A), though, observed that the reliance of the Assessing Officer on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Kusum Lata, Agra vs. Sonia Kumar, Mumbai

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

ITA 341/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

source of each deposit/withdrawals are enclosed as Annexure- A and copy of Land Sale Deed as Annexure B. 10. Because the exparte assessment and first appeal orders are against the principles of natural justice, past without proper inquiry and proper opportunity of hearing. The assesse seeks relief from

M/S. Nanguneri Milk Producer Company Limited, Tirunelveli, Nanguneri Town vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tirunelveli, Income Tax Office

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2875/CHNY/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2875/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S.Nanguneri Milk Producer Ito Company Limited Ward-1, बनाम/ #1, Kalakadu Road, Tirunelveli. Vs. Soorangudi, Nanguneri Town, Tirunelveli-627 108. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcn-6047-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Addl.Cit)– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (Addl.CIT)– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P

sole grievance of the assessee is denial of deduction u/s. 80PA. The assessee has failed to appear during first appeal. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 2. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we deem

Parkkot Maritima Agencies Private Limited, Vasco vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Margao

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 169/PAN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 169/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Parkkot Maritime Agencies Pvt Ltd. Parkkot House, Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa-403802 Pan : Aadcp1208P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Margoa, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S V Shivrama Iyer [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055088420(1) Dt. 11/08/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Regular Assessment Dt. 16/03/2015 Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa [In Short ‘Ld. Ao’].

For Appellant: Mr S V Shivrama Iyer [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 199Section 234BSection 250

assessee while culminating assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt. 16/03/2015. 3. Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in first appeal but remained unsuccessful. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present appeal on as many as four argumentative grounds. Dispensing the reproduction thereof it is noted

Vishwanath Venkatesh Kamath, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 110/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 110/Pan/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vishwanath Venkatesh Kamat Pb Road, Kolhapur Cross, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum. Pan : Adcpk7548Q . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045183404(1) Dt. 05/09/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Best Judgement Assessment Order Dt. 25/12/2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belgaum [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act out of SBN deposits made.. 4. The assessee impugned the aforestated additions in first appeal before Ld. NFAC. Without disturbing the addition made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act the Ld. NFAC has partly allowed the appeal

Sarlaben Dahyabhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54BSection 54FSection 55A

made addition of ½ share of difference vis-à-vis the sale consideration and the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority. During Sarlaben Dahyabhai Patel First Appeal, the report of DVO was received. The DVO estimated FMV of the land at Rs.2.79 crores i.e., at Rs.1960/- per square meter. The assessee

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1124/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

which the appellant failed to pay dividend distribution tax, in the assessment order passed u/s 153A in the case of the appellant company. On first appeal filed by the assessee, the LD.CIT(A) upheld the inference of deemed dividend drawn by the AO in the assessment order. However, the LD.CIT

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Msn Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 1123/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Msn Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1122/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Bleand

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

which the appellant failed to pay dividend distribution tax, in the assessment order passed u/s 153A in the case of the appellant company. On first appeal filed by the assessee, the LD.CIT(A) upheld the inference of deemed dividend drawn by the AO in the assessment order. However, the LD.CIT

Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1072/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1071/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 & ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 ORDER PER BENCH : The appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14

Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1068/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Bleand

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

which the appellant failed to pay dividend distribution tax, in the assessment order passed u/s 153A in the case of the appellant company. On first appeal filed by the assessee, the LD.CIT(A) upheld the inference of deemed dividend drawn by the AO in the assessment order. However, the LD.CIT

Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1067/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR