“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

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

taxed amount, fresh arguments especially legal in character on the basis of the existing records cannot be raised before him without appreciating that the first appeal proceeding are a mere continuation of the assessment proceedings and the powers of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are co-terminous with those

Vama Pvt Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vama Department Sore Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7398/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 7398/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Vama Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Vama Deparmtnet Store Private Limited), Kanchanjunga, 72, Peddar Road, Mumbai 400 026 Pan: Aaacv-1262-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(3)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri S.N.Kabra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/04/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri S.N.Kabra

rectified, rather there is no provision to revise the Form electronically. The ld.Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that at the time of filing first appeal before the CIT(A) electronically, while punching the assessment year instead of assessment year 2012-13 the assessment year was wrongly mentioned as assessment

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3403/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2908/मुं/2019 ("न.व .2015-16) The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. Pan: Aaacl-0582-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 3403/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2015-16) Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaacl-0582-H बनाम Vs. The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 02

For Appellant: Shri T. SankarFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 44

Thus, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115-O r.w.s. 115Q of the Act and made addition of the aforesaid amount. In first appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2025/Mum/2000 for assessment year

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T. SankarFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 44

Venus International, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2), Mumbai

ITA 1623/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 69C

assessee owing to the fact that the assessee has obtained benefit in the past against such outstanding trading liabilities. The CIT(A), in first appeal, however, has set aside the action of the AO primarily on the ground that the assessee has not written back of these amounts

JCIT, Bengaluru vs. M/S Abb Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1837/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Dilip, Advocate and Standing Counsel

Section 14A

warranty. The AO came to the conclusion that the provision for warranty is a contingent liability and denied the claim of the assessee. On first appeal, the learned CIT(A), relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BEML (245 ITR 428)( concluded

Abb India Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Addl.C.I.T, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1808/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Dilip, Advocate and Standing Counsel

Section 14A

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Rrb Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the RevenueDepartment stands dismissed

ITA 7323/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Addl. Cit, Vs. Rrb Energy Ltd, Special Range-7, Ga, 1/B-1, Extension, New Delhi Mohan Coop. Ind Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacv0109N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriVipulKashyap, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri. S. Krishanan, Ld. Adv

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35Section 40

sought to be evaded. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the AO, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner while thoroughly considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, deleted the penalty by observing as under:- “2.2 Ground

M/S. Aakriti International Inc., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5484/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Aakriti International Inc. Vs. Dcit, 4/5, Vijay Nagar, Double Central Circle-25, Storey, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcj1341H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Ld Sr. DR

ultimately assessed the income of the Assessee at Rs. 7,87,30,750/-. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who vide impugned order sustained the addition of Rs. 6,57,79,752/- qua unsecured loans taken by the Assessee

Suman Creation, Mumbai vs. ITO -22 (6) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed and addition made by CPC and confirmed by CIT (A) is directed to be deleted

ITA 1687/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin RomaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made by the CPC is Rs 7,73,607 for AY 2018-19 and Rs 9,64,104 for AY 2019-20. 5. On first appeal, the Ld CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance / adjustment made by the CPC mainly on the following two grounds. a. Relying on decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. Dr. Kamini Aravind Rao, Bangalore

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

ITA 1482/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Dilip, Standing Counsel for DeptFor Respondent: Sri.Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 64

shall be the Commissioner (Appeals) for any appeal filed by cases falling under the jurisdiction of Pr.CIT-2, Bangalore. In the present case, the first appeal has been decided by the CIT(A), Bangalore-1, who did not have jurisdiction over the appeal filed by the cases falling under

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1425/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/So D.C.Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaaco8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

respect of the addition confirmed by the Tribunal. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that in first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty, however, partial relief was granted to the assessee by restricting penalty @ 100%. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5677/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

Accordingly, the ld. AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.92,34,065/- as income earned from Indian operations. On first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the taxable income to Rs.4,59,71,208/- and directed the ld. AO to verify and take the correct turnover

Sulbha K. Amre, Mumbai vs. ITO - 27(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Venugopal C. Nair, CAFor Respondent: Sh. C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

respectively are placed on record. A perusal of said application reveals that the assessee has given bonafide reasons for delay in filing of the first appeal by assessee. The 4 आअसं.357/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2014-15) acknowledgement clearly establishes that the assessee had filed an application seeking condonation

Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi

Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

thereafter there is no change in the chemical composition or other properties of the gas in the activity of filling the cylinder. In first appeal, the CIT(A) affirmed the findings of Assessing Officer. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that bottling of LPG cylinders

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi

Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai vs. Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 132Section 153A

average of the gross profit declared in the earlier years . The Hon'ble judges held ” that the " Respondent substantially succeeded in the first appeal as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order dated 5th November, 2004 observed that the profits of the block period between 1st April