“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

Metal India, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6591/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Aman Garg, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

added a sum of Rs. 2,57,52,421/- as bogus purchases in the income of the Assessee. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine for want of prosecution on the part

Fortune Developers, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 41/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

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

addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) in quantum appeal for the above stated reasons. The impugned penalty has been levied after finalization of first appeal of assessee wherein the impugned addition has been confirmed. The assessee during appellate proceeding has contended that the assessee did not have the necessary

Shambanna Jattappa Hadimani, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Hubli

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

ITA 556/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250

mistaken belief and notion that even the second appeal before the Tribunal would have to be filed on the e-filing portal like first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) instead of filing the same before the ITAT portal and this wrong advice resulted in delay of filing the appeal

Shree Jalaram Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2592/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ISection 234BSection 40

would be attracted. The Ld. AO accordingly proceeded to disallow Rs. 41,81,760 u/s 40(a)(ia). 7. In the First Appeal, the Assessee had, inter-alia. contended that the provisions of section 194-I would not be applicable to its case and that the Assessee was not required

Babulal Pukharaj Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2557/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, ARFor Respondent: Ms Saroj Wankar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

This profit percentage was estimated by the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2009-10 at 15% and for A.Y. 2010-11 at 12.5%. On first appeal, the learned CIT (A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to estimate the profit percentage at 12.5% for both the years. 06. Since

Babulal Pukharaj Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2556/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, ARFor Respondent: Ms Saroj Wankar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Ecospace Suppliers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(2), Kolkata

ITA 583/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

tried to take the exercise ourselves for deciding the appeal on merits by treating it as if it is a first appeal but we fail to appreciate the true character of the transactions. Even the assessee did not file anything before any of the authorities. It merely completed the formality

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

down by the Hon‟ble High Court it would be pertinent to consider the facts of the case. This judgment was rendered in regular first appeal arising from the order dismissing suit for permanent injunction filed by ESPN Star Sports (ESS), holding exclusive right to broadcast some cricket matches

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Universal Music India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National Faceless Apeal Centre (NFAC), Dehi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 945/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.945/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Plot No.6-62, Block G, Bkc (Opp. Trident Hotel) Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaacp-1985-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikash Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘ The Cit(A) ] Dated 25/03/2021, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Four Grounds. Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Are General In Nature. The Grievance Of Assessee In Ground No. 3 & 4 Of Appeal Is:

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. GurjarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

mentioned “Nil”. 3.2 Aggrieved against the aforesaid disallowances made by Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Initially, the first appeal was fixed for hearing before the CIT(A) in physical mode. Subsequently, the appeal was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Capital Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 7060/मुं/ 2017 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1515/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1), Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 61/मुं/ 2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 2109/मुं/ 2019("न.व. 2015-16) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(3)(1),/Jcit (Osd) 2(3)(1) Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Tata Capital Limited, 11Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400 013 Pan:Aadcp-9147-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

Officer thereafter 14 ITA NO. 1515/MUM/2019(A.Y.2015-16) ITA NO. 2109/MUM/2019(A.Y.2015-16) invoked the provisions of Rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs.17.48 crores. In first appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made u/r. 8D(2)(ii) and gave partial relief in respect of disallowance

Tata Capital Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1515/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

Tata Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7060/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

M/S. Warner Bros.Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax)-4(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-tanto

ITA 1721/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvkvkla- 1721@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½ ..... Vihykfkhz/Applicant Warner Bros. Distributing Inc. C/Of The Act Warner Bros. Pictures India Pvt. Ltd. 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Sahar Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan No. Aaacw6559R Cuke Vs. ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No.1611, 16Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash-Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 5(2)

preceding assessment years. In AY 2006-07 the issue was raised by the AO for the first time. The CIT(A) in first appeal reversed the findings of the AO and held that the income from distribution and exhibition of films is not taxable in India as the assessee

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 40A(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Hq) (Judl) to the CIT 14, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 3374/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)Section 263

memo of first Court" and, therefore. "I advised and prepared the memo of first Court" and, therefore. "I advised and prepared the memo of first appeal and asked defendent defendent to go and present the same to the to go and present the same to the District Judge. Nimar ... Justice Newaskar J relying upon Hon’ble Justice Newaskar J relying upon Hon’ble Justice Newaskar J relying upon Phoolabhai v. Ashabhai, First Appeal No. 42 of 1954. dated 3 Ashabhai, First Appeal No. 42 of 1954. dated 3 Ashabhai, First Appeal No. 42 of 1954. dated

Mseb Holding Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1181/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)Section 263

Harita Fehrer Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Salary Circle II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3113/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3113/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011 - 12 Harita Fehrer Ltd., The Acit, No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Vs. Salary Circle Ii, Haddows Road, Chennai Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aacch 1037R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : S/Shri C. Pradeep Dinodia, Ca, Ravi Kumar, Ca & Anil Kumar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: S/Shri C. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 263

said appeal has not been rectified/corrected by the Assessee. However, the assessee under the bona-fide belief that post dismissal of its first appeal in limine by the Hon'ble Tribunal, filed a fresh appeal i.e. ITA No. 3113/CHNY/2019 which was filed within 8 days of the dismissal order received

M/S. Dream Logistics Company Private Limited, Uttar Kannada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1001/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, AddlCIT-DR

Section 234Section 249Section 32Section 36Section 37

weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] erred in law and on facts in dismissing the first appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 68 days due to non-filing of the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal