“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

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Navratna Organisers and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. D.R

Section 14A

interest bearing fund and interest free fund. He, therefore, worked out the disallowance of Rs. 55,80,775/- u/s. 14 rwr 8D. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s. 14A to Rs. 5,12,548/- i.e. to the extent of exempt income earned during the year

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

pass necessary order modifying if required) the assessment order passed by him. Needless to say, the appellant will be entitled to come in first appeal against such order of the learned assessing officer if the same is not as per the orders of the higher authorities. The action ... alleges that assessee has taken purchase of assets as application of income in earlier years and claiming of depreciation tantamount to double benefit. In first appeal, the exemption of the assessee has been withdrawn u/s 10(23C) and the status of assessee is considered as AOP by the ld.CIT

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 45/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Smt. Rajni Gutpa, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

ITA 44/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69

order dated 28.12.2019 passed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar the assessee preferred the first appeal. 2 Smt. Rajni Gupta vs. ACIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred ... consideration. 4. Aggrieved from finding so recorded and the contention of the assessee was not appreciated by the ld. AO, the assessee preferred the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged the legality of the addition and on the merits that the addition is not warranted. Apropos

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” Once the concerned authority applies its mind and declines to condone the delay in filing

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 702/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 701/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 147Section 20Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 1 of 23 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

ITA 699/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Ravishankar, A.R

Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 1 of 23 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Reena Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 256/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

unaccounted interest on investment at Rs. 3,31,902/- and the addition on account of LTCG at Rs. 2,86,242 were sustained in first appeal before the CIT(A). Accordingly, it was held by AO that the appellant had concealed the particulars of income to the extent

Shree Kalika Devi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Karad, Karad vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

ITA 419/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Kalika Devi Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit 6/1, Kasar Galli, Guruwar Peth, Karad Ta.: Karad, Dist.: Satara-415110 Pan: Aaaak3735D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satara . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059407077(1) Dt. 05/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/06/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 80P(2)

prosecution but also on the ground of limitation. 4. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate 100 days delay in instituting first appeal before Ld. NFAC we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Syed Gulam Mohiuddin, Hyderabad vs. ITO, International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 69

time limit for finishing the process is reduced unlike the assessee who gets further time for assessment order, can avail larger time limit in first appeal. Thus, any such interpretation goes against the legislative intent of providing grievance redressal to eligible assessees. 6. Violation of the Rule

Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1-Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the corporate additions made in the assessment order would not survive

ITA 641/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.641/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S.Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Limited Dcit (Formerly Known As Hospira Healthcare India Corporate Circle-5(2)-Ltu, बनाम/ Private Limited) Chennai. Vs. 237, Emerald Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabco-2190-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 14ASection 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 2(24)Section 31Section 35Section 92C

which was disposed-off on 31.03.2022 wherein the writ appeals were dismissed and the adjudication of learned Judge was confirmed. 8. The assessee preferred first appeal against assessment order dated 28-02-2020 on 29-12-2021. In the meanwhile, Ld. AO gave effect to the order

Taruna Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 111/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: M/S Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 115Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 3Section 80C

allowing the taxation under new regime in spite of filing of Form 10-IE Both CPC in processing the ITR and in first appeal, Ld CIT (A) have disallowed the claim of taxation u/s 115BAC stating that assessee could not submit the Form 10-IE within time allowed. Your honour ... erred in not allowing deduction claimed u/s 80C & 80D. This ground is without prejudice to the ground of appeal no. 1. Assessee in first appeal before Ld. CIT (A), claimed deduction under chapter VIA for PPF and mediclaim. Proofs were filed before CIT (A) in hearing along with revised Computation

Divyanidhi Buildcon Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 616/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(3)

expenditure claimed by the assessee for an amount of Rs. 32,10,282/- was added back as income of the assessee. In the first appeal the ld. CIT(A) has out of the claim of the assessee confirmed the disallowance of interest of Rs. 30,34,582/- paid

ITO, Ward, Palampur vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kangra

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43Section 43D

interest due on Non-Performing Assets (NPA) amounting Rs 8,66,23,360/-. 5. The respondent herein being aggrieved as aforesaid had preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein they interalia raised following grounds: 1. The Ld. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax has gravely erred, and without appreciating

ITO, Ward, Palampur vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kangra

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/CHANDI/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 May 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43Section 43D

ITO, Ward, Palampur vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kangra

In the result, appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Us Is Filed Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As Amended From Time To Time. The Respondent Is A Cooperative Bank.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 253

order of AO is dt. 29/09/2021 DIN No. is ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021- 22/1035999175(1). 4. The Respondent herein being aggrieved as aforesaid preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein they interalia has raised following grounds: "1. Disallowance under section

State Bank of India, Thalassery( Erstwhile State Bank of Travancore), Kannur vs. ITO (TDS), Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 926/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalstate Bank Of India (Erstwhile Sbt) Income Tax Officer-Tds Thalassery Branch Aayakar Bhavan Gundert Road Vs. Konnothumchal Thalassery 670101 Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 [Pan: Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10(5)Section 12Section 192Section 201Section 286

this appeal is the maintainability of the order u/ss. 201 & 201(1A) dated 17.12.2020 for financial year (f.y.) 2013-14, since confirmed in first appeal. The assessee-bank failing to deduct tax at source on the reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) to it's employees, which did not satisfy