← 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

Ravindra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption, Thane

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

ITA 2035/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

para 5 of the said order, we take note of the fact of notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) while disposing the first appeal of the assessee. We note that only two notices were issued, first on 29.01.2021 and the second on 12.12.2023 which according to him remained

Government Employees Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1), Bhavnagar

ITA 267/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. Since , Both These Appeals Raises Common Issue’S, They Are Heard Together & Are Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Jigneshkumar P Parikh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

income of the assessee by denying the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) . The assessee vide grounds of appeal and statement of facts filed in Form No. 35 before ld. CIT(A) claimed that the assessee

The Kalol Co.Op. Credit and Supply Society Ltd., Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Mehsana

ITA 135/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. Since , Both These Appeals Raises Common Issue’S, They Are Heard Together & Are Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Jigneshkumar P Parikh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

income of the assessee by denying the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) . The assessee vide grounds of appeal and statement of facts filed in Form No. 35 before ld. CIT(A) claimed that the assessee

Divya Bhalchandra Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 714/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 12/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054298633(1), Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 13-10-2017 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The 1961 Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R. & Shri
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

vide assessment order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the A.O. u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , and the assessee raised ground of appeal and also stated in statement of fact filed before Ld. CIT(A) , that the assessee ... cash to the seller for purchase of the aforesaid shop of which sources could not be explained by the assessee. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee but there was no compliance by the assessee

Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., 1, Senetary Road, Kutchhi Patidar Vadi, Petlad Tal. Petlad Dist. Anand vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 277/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Respectfully following the precedent, I overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the addition of Rs.1,78,500/- sustained in the first appeal.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of M/s.Bhagur Urban Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., in ITA No.561/PUN/2022, it is held

Shree Dental Speciality Hospital, Kalyan vs. Central Circle-3 Thane, Thane Ashar I T Park

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2087/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 249Section 270A

Computation of tax liability on total income. 5.1. He also noted that there is a delay of 461 days in filing the first appeal. A show cause notice was issued on the assessee as to why the appeal should not be dismissed in limine in terms of section ... court of law for non deposit of the due taxes. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal in limine for non payment of taxes due on the returned income as well as on account of delay in filing of the said appeal

Shree Dental Speciality Hospital, Kalyan vs. Central Circle- 3, Thane

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2086/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 249Section 270A

Computation of tax liability on total income. 5.1. He also noted that there is a delay of 461 days in filing the first appeal. A show cause notice was issued on the assessee as to why the appeal should not be dismissed in limine in terms of section ... court of law for non deposit of the due taxes. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal in limine for non payment of taxes due on the returned income as well as on account of delay in filing of the said appeal

Shree Dental Speciality Hospital, Kalyan vs. Central Circle- 3, Thane

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2083/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 249Section 270A

Computation of tax liability on total income. 5.1. He also noted that there is a delay of 461 days in filing the first appeal. A show cause notice was issued on the assessee as to why the appeal should not be dismissed in limine in terms of section ... court of law for non deposit of the due taxes. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal in limine for non payment of taxes due on the returned income as well as on account of delay in filing of the said appeal

Shree Dental Speciality Hospital, Kalyan vs. Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2081/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 144Section 249Section 270A

Computation of tax liability on total income. 5.1. He also noted that there is a delay of 461 days in filing the first appeal. A show cause notice was issued on the assessee as to why the appeal should not be dismissed in limine in terms of section ... court of law for non deposit of the due taxes. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal in limine for non payment of taxes due on the returned income as well as on account of delay in filing of the said appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Kd Campus Private Limited, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

Rs.7.66 crore; estimated additions towards Rent charges paid Rs.1.67 crore; payment to contractors of Rs.5.39 crore. 4. The CIT(A) in the first appeal analyzed the factual matrix in length and found that the impugned additions are contrary to facts on record. The additions made by the AO were thus ... total receipts as noticed in the bank statements furnished by the assessee of Rs.64,24,90,763/-. The CIT(A), in first appeal, examined the detailed submissions and reconciliation statement filed by the assessee together with explanation offered. The CIT(A) found apparent incongruities in the action

Nand Krishna Kumar Goswami, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 518/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 31-01-2024 In Din & Order No.

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

account of cash deposits in the bank during demonetization period being unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte in limine without deciding the issue’s arising in the appeal ... assessee is an afterthought and the same was a self serving document, which stood rejected by the AO. The assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee raised as many as 7 grounds of appeal ,and statement of facts was also filed before

Ilabahen Viralkumar Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 17/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal V. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

investment made by the assessee during the impugned assessment year in 23000 shares of M/s Hemo Organics Ltd.. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) . The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution as the assessee did not comply with ... stood added by the AO to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. I have observed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte in limine without deciding the issue arising in the appeal on merits for non-prosecution of the appeal

Veenapani Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 193/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalito 13(3)(1), Veenapani Investments Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limted, Mumbai.400020. Flat No. 302, B–Wing, Garden Court Co–Op Society Ltd, Amrutwani Road, Bhayender (W), Mumbai-401101. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv1684Q (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

parties. However, the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee made addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on legal ground as well as on merits. The revenue challenged the action

Jade Granites Industries, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 81/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Total Income Rs. 46,20,000 I.T.A No. 81/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 12 Jade Granites Industries v. ITO 4.Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) and challenged the addition made by the A.O. by raising as much as 5 Grounds of Appeal which are reproduced ... Capital introduced by Shri Ritesh Chaudhary` Rs. 30,00,000 Total Income Rs. 46,20,000 I have observed that the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , in which the assessee raised as many as five grounds of appeal. I have observed that the assessee has filed statement

Brijeshkumar Jayantibhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Office, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 18/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench , Ahmedabad For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 7Th November, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mundra, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

vide assessment order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the AO u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), and the ld. CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee, but the assessee did not file any details/documents before ... unexplained money u/s 69A . Further, addition of Rs. 15,350/- was made by the AO towards undisclosed interest income. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). In SOF/grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before ld. CIT(A), the assessee has claimed that the assessee is farmer

Sankalp Engineering and Services Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 10, Pune

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

ITA 249/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 56(2)(ia)Section 68

Being aggrieved with the above assessment order dated 30.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A). Being unsatisfied with the contentions of the assessee, LD CIT (A)/NFAC, vide order dated 30.12.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Assessee then ... ground that the appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is not yet decided. In this regard we find that the first appeal for Asstt Year 2014-15 has already been decided by LD CIT(A) on 28.03.2018, therefore, the reasoning given by ld. CIT(A) for sustaining the above addition

Income-Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Samta Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 180/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.180/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ito, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Vs. Samta Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Newasa Shevgaon Road, Kukana, Tal. Newasa, Dist.-Ahmednagar- 414604. Pan : Aacas1915K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Payal Rathi Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.07.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.1,54,02,646/- U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act, As The Assessee Claimed Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) In Respect Of The Interest Income From Investment, Which Is Not The Operational Income.

For Appellant: Smt. Payal RathiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee & referring various judgements, in first appeal LD CIT(A)NFAC agreed to the proposition that the interest 4 income earned by the assessee cooperative society, from other cooperative banks ... disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act in respect of interest income earned from other cooperative society. But in first appeal LD CIT(A) was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee & when the Revenue preferred 2nd appeal against the above first appeal order

Bright Securities Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no order as to

ITA 465/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 144BSection 147Section 148

material on record to establish the trading of the assessee as reversal trades. Therefore, the loss disallowed by the AO is not justified. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) vide appeal order dated 03/04/2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also take into consideration the additional ground

Mammunhi Mohammed Abdurrahiman Talangara, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 848/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Varun BramhechaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37Section 37(1)

proprietary concern of the appellant assessee. This fact was disclosed earlier in the Statement of Facts as well as the Financial statements submitted during first appeal proceedings. We are now submitting additional documents to prove that Aerosea Travels and Tours is a proprietary concern like GST Registration certificate, PT Registration

Krutika Ashwin Sarvaiya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 43/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

establish the sources and nature of cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- deposited in her bank accounts. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that assessee has not brought up any strong points which