“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

citing judgments

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

Judgments citing first appeal

The Kamran Vikas Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1657/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1657 To 1659/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

interest income from The Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd. was disallowed by the AO, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. 4. Shri Rushin Patel, the Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the interest earned by the assessee was from The Sabarkantha District

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Rajuri Steel and Tmt Bars Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1298/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1298/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rajuri Steel & Tmt Aurangabad. Bars Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase- Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.32/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1298/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajuri Steel & Tmt Bars Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase-Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By : Shri B. D. Bhide Date Of Hearing 05.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Shri B. D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

addition of Rs.6,77,80,000/- on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 3 C.O. No.32/PUN/2024 3. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) set-aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer and partly allowed the appeal

Dcitcc6.2, Mumbai vs. Top Class Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 974/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Assessee, being aggrieved challenged the reopening of the case u/s 147/148 of the Act also the aforesaid additions on merits, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. 8.1 The Ld. Commissioner though affirmed the reopening of the case u/s 147/148 of the Act as valid

Top Class Capital Markets Private Limited, Bombay Mutual Building, Fort vs. ACIT Central Circle 6 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee i

ITA 709/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Il and Fs Energy Development Company Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12(1) Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3462/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant A. Maheshwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 36(1)(iii)

that it is only of the time of reviewing the status of tax matter that the assessee learnt about the disposal of the first appeal ex parte. 3.1 The Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the delay occurred is not deliberate and, in fact, the assessee runs a serious risk

Kapil Dev, Chandigarh Road Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of A Second Appeal As Provided For In The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Bearing No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1063400827(1) Dated 26.03.2024 Passed In First Appeal Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order” U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 127Section 139Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 69A

from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) bearing No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1063400827(1) dated 26.03.2024 passed in first appeal which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That as per information ... /AST/S/144/2019-20/1023484411(1) dated 30.12.2019 which is under Section 144, of the Act. 9) The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 30.12.2019 files first appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned order has sustained the aforesaid findings

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 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

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3577/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sushant N. AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel

Section 144Section 147Section 2(24)Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 28Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

payable as per the return of income and further, the Appellant has paid Rs. 5,00,000/- on 16-03-2020 before filing of first appeal 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, vary, delete, and rescind all or any of the above ground

Manisha H More, Kalyan vs. ACIT Central Circle 3 Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2301/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

operative before the first appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the delay if any, in filing first appeal is condoned. We further deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits

Manisha Hemant More, Ravi Raj vs. ACIT Central Circle -3, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2300/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250

hold that the delay has wrongly been refused to be condoned by learned CIT(A). We, accordingly condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.02.2024 is set aside. The delay ... filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance

Jmc-Mske(Jv), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 830/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

along with cost escalation. Thus, the Assessing Officer denied deduction u/s. 80-IA(4) of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(Appeals) and made elaborate submissions to justify that the assessee is a developer and is entitled for deduction

Jmc-Mske(Jv), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 829/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Bgsctpl- Mskel (Jv), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 828/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Bgsctpl- Mskel Consortium, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2498/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Hydraguard International Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward.2(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2103/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2103/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Hydraguard International Pvt. Ltd. Ito #86, Polyhose Towers, 8Th Floor, बनाम/ Corporate Ward-2(3) Western Ring, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-7219-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.M. Khaja Muyeenuddeen (Ca)– Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In This Appeal, The Assessee Seeks Application Of Correct Rate Of Tax. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 07-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 18-12-2021. 2. Upon Perusal Of Impugned Order, It Could Be Seen That In Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, The Assessee Opted For Taxation In Terms Of Sec.115Baa @22%. The Assessee Declared Income

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Khaja Muyeenuddeen (CA)– Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)

support of the same. Accordingly, CPC computed tax @30% and raised demand against the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal. 3. During first appeal, the assessee, in the alternative, stated that tax rate should be applied @25% since the turnover of the assessee for previous year

R K M Powergen Private Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 109/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. In the first appeal proceeding, the assessee submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in Tuticorin Alkali (supra) was distinguishable on facts since, in that case idle/surplus funds had been invested

Nutech Engineering Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 952/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 50

order of the Tribunal and bu restoring the assessment on the profit on sale of the building as short term capital gains, confirmed in first appeal. 4. Since this judgment was not cited by the parties and it came to our notice subsequently, therefore, in the interest of justice

Dulron Procon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4544/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S First Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee at Rs. 8,75,17,917/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 3. Assessee has filed this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition by passing impugned order

Dinesh Engineers Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 3548/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

were made. The assessee, after having failed in filing its rectification u/s. 154 of the Act on 12.12.2022, filed first appeal on 31.12.2020 along with delay condonation application, however learned CIT(A) was not satisfied by the assessee’s explanation and dismissed assessee’s first appeal upon rejection of delay ... about 07 months. The delay is based on assessee’s bonafide intentions. Learned AR has prayed to condone the said delay caused in filing first appeal and to set aside the impugned order and direct learned CIT(A) to pass the order on merit afresh. 7. Learned DR has supported