← 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

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1057/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. 3.1 For AY 2013-14, assessment order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1056/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. 3.1 For AY 2013-14, assessment order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1055/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. 3.1 For AY 2013-14, assessment order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. 3.1 For AY 2013-14, assessment order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1053/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. 3.1 For AY 2013-14, assessment order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) Page 5 of 48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1052/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. 3.1 For AY 2013-14, assessment order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Amit Gupta, Taruchhaya Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 679/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return For The Purpose Of Seeking Foreign Tax Credit Is A Mandatory Condition. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Foreign Tax Credit Amount Of Rs.64,00,660/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Neither Filed Return Nor Form 67 For Claiming Foreign Tax Credit Within Due Date Prescribed For The Relevant Year Which Is Due Date Prescribed For The Relevant Year Which Is In Contravention To The Provisions Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 90Section 91

rejected the foreign tax credit (FTC) claimed of Rs.64,00,660/- and raised demand against the assessee of such amount including interest which in first appeal has been allowed by the ld. CIT(A) by observing that ‘’Having regard in consonance with the view expressed by the Co- ordinate Benches

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Karad Satara vs. The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Karad Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

basis of this disallowance the then AO proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.62,39,793/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. In first appeal relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro products

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 225/IND/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 250

paid vouchers and (ii) roaming charges paid to OTOs. The AO created demand of tax plus interest. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in first appeal to CIT(A) but could not succeed. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us challenging the orders of lower authorities

Tribhuvan Sharda, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 199/JPR/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 151Section 69

included by him in his total income is hereby assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee under the head 'Other Sources'’’ 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 5.4 to 7.2 of his order. ‘’5.4 I have perused

Veena Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 295/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

153D by Add CIT- Central Range 7 Delhi (dated 21.12.2018) without any reference on asst./case order sheet and therefore impugned asst order and first appeal order may please quashed for want of valid approval u/s 153D of 1961 Act.” Veena Singh Vs. ACIT 3. Brief facts of the case

Veena Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 294/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

153D by Add CIT- Central Range 7 Delhi (dated 21.12.2018) without any reference on asst./case order sheet and therefore impugned asst order and first appeal order may please quashed for want of valid approval u/s 153D of 1961 Act.” Veena Singh Vs. ACIT 3. Brief facts of the case

Ashish Sood, Zirakpur vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 747/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253Section 90

which was passed by CIT(A)-6, Chennai, Tamilnadu in appeal no. NFAC/2019-20/10074913 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The aforesaid first appeal of the Assessee before the first appellate authority constituted under Income Tax Act, 1961, by virtue of the aforesaid order dt. 28/11/2023 was dismissed ... under section 90/91 of the Income Tax Act and Rules are provided much before the assessment order / intimation under section 143(1) / first appeal order U/S 250 as the case may be, it is incumbent on part of lower authorities both i.e.; AO and Ld. CIT(A) to at least

Mr.P.C.Jose, Cochin vs. DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

subject land being agricultural, was also assessed as short-term capital gain (STCG), i.e., on protective basis (para 2.6). 5.2 In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee holding as: ‘II. (a) ….. (c) d) After careful consideration of the points raised by the appellant

Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. DCIT TDS, Indore

ITA 265/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

Biyani, AM: These are the two appeals filed by assessee for Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment-Year 2010-11. The first appeal being ITA No. Page 1 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 415/Ind/2014 is directed ... paid vouchers as well as u/s 194J out of roaming charges paid to OTOs plus interest. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) but did not get any success. The assessee filed next appeal ITA No. 265/Ind/2018 to ITAT, Indore. This appeal was decided

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The CIT (TDS), Bhopal

ITA 415/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

Biyani, AM: These are the two appeals filed by assessee for Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment-Year 2010-11. The first appeal being ITA No. Page 1 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 415/Ind/2014 is directed ... paid vouchers as well as u/s 194J out of roaming charges paid to OTOs plus interest. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) but did not get any success. The assessee filed next appeal ITA No. 265/Ind/2018 to ITAT, Indore. This appeal was decided

Loksewa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, Buldhana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Lokeswa Shikshan The Commissioner Of Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, V Income Tax-I, Nagpur. C/O. Dr.Arvindw.Kolte, S Janta College, Buldhana Road, Malkapur – 443101. Pan: Aaatl5306N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjay Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Dated 11.11.2014 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Material Already On Record The Learned Cit Should Have Granted Registration U/S. 12A As Per Assessee’S Application Filed On Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A]

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 148Section 253(3)

Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand 6 Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A] rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” Unquote. 5.2 Thus, respectfully following the Hon’ble Supreme Court(supra), assessee’s application

Kamal Dewan, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 135/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 69A

deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee”. 4.2 In first appeal ld. CIT(A) has relied upon on the assessment order and confirmed the additions by stating that no any documentary evidence has been produced

Mansi Mukesh Bari, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1) Now Ward 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 582/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.582/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.S Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

relevant materials available on record. The assessee has contended that the tax consultant has not represented the assessee’s case properly when the first appeal was decided by the Ld.CIT(A), vide order dated 21/11/2017. The assessee after restoring back the appeal by the Tribunal has again failed to take

The Dy. CIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 1621/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood allowed by the ld. CIT(A) , by holding as under:- “5.2 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, the observations