← 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

Medicure Chemist, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1919/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pratik JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

liberty already granted, we condone the same and direct the ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal for its meritorious adjudication. 9. Since the first appeal has been disposed of by the ld. CIT(A) as “dismissed as not maintainable”, we remit the matter back to the file

Ravi Plant Biotechnologies Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Addl. CIT, TDS, Vadodara

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

relied upon by it as well as the judgements of the Hon’ble Higher Authorities. 3. Appellant therefore pleads that delay in filing the first appeal be condoned and appeal be remanded in terms of Rule 28 of Income Tax Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 4 (Appellate Tribunal

Kalikavu Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kalikavu vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tirur

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 375/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hussain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 2(24)(viia)Section 5Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

assessee is hereby allowed. Assessee’s ground is allowed. 9. Coming to the second appeal ITA No. 375/Coch/2024, the issue is identical with the first appeal. Since we have allowed the first appeal ITA 3474/Coch/2024 the second appeal is allowed on the very terms. 10. In the combined result, both

Kalikavu Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kalikavu vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tirur

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 374/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hussain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 2(24)(viia)Section 5Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

assessee is hereby allowed. Assessee’s ground is allowed. 9. Coming to the second appeal ITA No. 375/Coch/2024, the issue is identical with the first appeal. Since we have allowed the first appeal ITA 3474/Coch/2024 the second appeal is allowed on the very terms. 10. In the combined result, both

Rajesh Birthare, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 3(4), Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 111/IND/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Date of Hearing 26.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.09.2024 /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: These are the two appeals filed by assessee. The first appeal being /TA 111/Aind/2024 is directed against appeal-order dated 11.12.2023 passed by Page 1 of 10 Shri Rajesh Birthare, Indore. ITA No. 111 & 112/Ind/2024

Vee Aar Security Printers, Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

ITA 409/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060962827(1) Dated 15/02/2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Ay Is 2013-14 Corresponding To Previous Year Period From 01/04/2012 To 31/03/2013. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 68

assessed income of Rs. 3,00,000/- under section 143(3) vide earlier order dt. 30/12/2015. The assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 was carried in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed the first appeal of the assesse. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order

Skoda Auto Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad vs. The ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

ITA 1323/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And HON’BLE SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr Abhay Avachat [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

return, the Ld. AO denied the deduction & framed the assessment to the best of his judgement. Since the appellant was indifferent in first appeal, the former denial was upheld by the Ld. NFAC for non-prosecution. 6. The reasons behind non-compliance occurred during the course assessment proceedings ... prosecution of first appeal filed of before Ld. NFAC are explained by the Ld. AR, which prima-face appears us to be ‘sufficient & undeliberate’ ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 Skoda Auto Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit Vs ITO ITA No. 1323/PUN/2024 AY: 2020-21 which precluded the appellant from making

Kanhiaya Lal Sain, Jaipur vs. JCIT Range-7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

loan repayment in cash to Smt. Meena Sharma. Against the order of the assessee has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). In First appeal the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed and supported the action of the Add. CIT(A) as ignoring the request of the assessee. Hence this

Shree Ganesh Developers, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2424/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 3. | Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of expenses of compensation

ACIT, Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Wealth Advisors Pvt. Limited, Mumbai

In the result Departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 4215/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 37(1)

hence the sum of Rs. 2,18,0,9000/-reduced by the assessee was not considered for reduction by the Learned AO. On first appeal, the said reduction was granted by the Learned CITA by relying on certain case laws. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before

Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune. S.No.2/6, Near Baner Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacr8741G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Weighted Deduction Amounting To Rs.9,25,79,494/- U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Act. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Company Was Not Entitled To Claim Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Since Form No. 3Cla Was Filed By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Specified U/S 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37(1)

returned by the assessee company at loss of Rs.5,08,48,879/-. 7 6. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 29.12.2023 dismissed

Vikesh Sampat Jain, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune

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

ITA 828/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vikesh Sampat Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune. 501, Ajanta Complex, Rasta Peth, Near K.E.M. Hospital, Pune- 411011. Pan : Abbpj0844K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing 25.06.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessed Income At Rs. 54,68,490/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 8,18,490/- 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.6,50,000/- In Respect Of Loan Availed By Assessee From Mr.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

against the income shown by the assessee at Rs.8,18,490/-. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After 4 considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

Aak South East India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 324/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 324/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Aak South East India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aadca3601M] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ld.Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 20/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08/02/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Bhubaneswar In The Case Of Aak South East India Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Assessee Preferred This Appeal, With A Delay Of One Day. 2. Assessee Company While Filing The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19, By Mistake Failed To Make A Claim In The Column Number 49 Of The Return Of Income, Though Infact There Were Unabsorbed

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154

sufficient material on record to verify the allowability of set off of unabsorbed depreciation, it should have been verified and allowed at the first appeal stage, but, it was not done because it would end up in assessed income being less than the returned income. But at the same time

Periyannan Santhamoorthy, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 215/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Periyannan Santhamoorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 109/2, Pallapatti Village & Post, Ward 1, Nettadahalli, B.O, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 636 803. [Pan:Aypps 4031C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

section 144 read with section 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2022 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Utv Software Communications Pvt Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 2944/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nehaar Ranjan Pandey, D.R
Section 250Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92C

Assessee challenged the said addition along with other additions made by the AO vide assessment order dated 29.04.2015, before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal who vide order dated 22.11.2019 though decided other grounds/additions raised/challenged by the Assessee, however, failed to adjudicate the ground relating to benchmarking of interest

U P Sugar Mills Cogen Association, Lucknow vs. AO Exemption Circle, Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 145/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.145/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Up Sugar Mills Cogen Association, 403, Chintels House,16-Station Road, Lucknow, Up-226001 Pan: Aaatu2238A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Swaran Singh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Krishna Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

income without permitting deduction of expenditure incurred in relation to gross income so earned by or accrued to the assessee. When case sailed in first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) merely recorded the perusal of documents and dismissed the appeal in haste by jumping onto the conclusion without dilating

Rakesh Rawat, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(1), Lucknow

ITA 384/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Saurabh Gupta [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Neil Jain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69

No.383 & 384/LKW/2023 appeal before the first appellate authority and where the assessee's quest for condonation for delay in filing the first appeal, has been rejected for lack genuine or bona-fide reasons. Further, even while seeking the condonation of delay in this Penalty appeal matter, the Appellant

Rakesh Rawat, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(1), Lucknow

ITA 383/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Saurabh Gupta [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Neil Jain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69

No.383 & 384/LKW/2023 appeal before the first appellate authority and where the assessee's quest for condonation for delay in filing the first appeal, has been rejected for lack genuine or bona-fide reasons. Further, even while seeking the condonation of delay in this Penalty appeal matter, the Appellant

DCIT Central Circle 8.1, Mumbai vs. Shivalik Ventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as CO filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3429/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nayana Krishnakumar, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40

reduced from the WIP shown by the assessee as on 31-03-2012.” 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide order dated 16.05.2024 allowed the appeal of the Assessee and consequently deleted the aforesaid addition by holding

ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

income has escaped in original assessment. CIT(A) ought to have disposed off the case on merits, which was not done so in the first appeal which was before him under the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) on the facts of the case and in law has erred in passing ... issue i.e; issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act beyond limitation period has been wrongly decided against the Department in the first appeal therefore Department is not contesting first issue. (ii) Second issue is regarding issue of notice u/s 147 of the Act which is being held