← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6359/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

assessee submitted and reiterated his submissions which were raised by him in the written submissions made on behalf of these assessees in first appeal proceedings. It was submitted by him that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search and the seized material were nothing but copies ... regard is identical to one passed by him for earlier assessment years, i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 19. In first appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon). Ld. CIT(A) in para 7.3.5 of the appeal order held

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6358/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

assessee submitted and reiterated his submissions which were raised by him in the written submissions made on behalf of these assessees in first appeal proceedings. It was submitted by him that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search and the seized material were nothing but copies ... regard is identical to one passed by him for earlier assessment years, i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 19. In first appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon). Ld. CIT(A) in para 7.3.5 of the appeal order held

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6357/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

assessee submitted and reiterated his submissions which were raised by him in the written submissions made on behalf of these assessees in first appeal proceedings. It was submitted by him that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search and the seized material were nothing but copies ... regard is identical to one passed by him for earlier assessment years, i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 19. In first appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon). Ld. CIT(A) in para 7.3.5 of the appeal order held

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6356/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

assessee submitted and reiterated his submissions which were raised by him in the written submissions made on behalf of these assessees in first appeal proceedings. It was submitted by him that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search and the seized material were nothing but copies ... regard is identical to one passed by him for earlier assessment years, i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 19. In first appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon). Ld. CIT(A) in para 7.3.5 of the appeal order held

Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5722/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

assessee submitted and reiterated his submissions which were raised by him in the written submissions made on behalf of these assessees in first appeal proceedings. It was submitted by him that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search and the seized material were nothing but copies ... regard is identical to one passed by him for earlier assessment years, i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 19. In first appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon). Ld. CIT(A) in para 7.3.5 of the appeal order held

Sudhir Dhingra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5721/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

assessee submitted and reiterated his submissions which were raised by him in the written submissions made on behalf of these assessees in first appeal proceedings. It was submitted by him that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search and the seized material were nothing but copies ... regard is identical to one passed by him for earlier assessment years, i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 19. In first appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon). Ld. CIT(A) in para 7.3.5 of the appeal order held

Anoop Thatai, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5719/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 158BSection 2(22)(e)

assessee submitted and reiterated his submissions which were raised by him in the written submissions made on behalf of these assessees in first appeal proceedings. It was submitted by him that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search and the seized material were nothing but copies ... regard is identical to one passed by him for earlier assessment years, i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 19. In first appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon). Ld. CIT(A) in para 7.3.5 of the appeal order held

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5133/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee filed appeal against all the above heads of additions. In the appeal against the quantum additions, the following amounts were confirmed in first appeal. A.Y. Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 2008-09 30,00,000 (i) Disclosure in application settlement (ii) Unexplained cash credits ... assessee and proceeded to levy penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the amounts confirmed in first appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. First of all, in the notice issued

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5132/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee filed appeal against all the above heads of additions. In the appeal against the quantum additions, the following amounts were confirmed in first appeal. A.Y. Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 2008-09 30,00,000 (i) Disclosure in application settlement (ii) Unexplained cash credits ... assessee and proceeded to levy penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the amounts confirmed in first appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. First of all, in the notice issued

Tirupati Inks Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3448/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tirupati Inks Ltd. Vs Dcit 1517, Devika Tower, Circle- 25 (1) 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacs2222F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shriharpal Singh Kharb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 249Section 249(2)(b)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

served upon the Assessee on 06.04.2016 and therefore as per section 249 (2) (b) of the Act, the Assessee was supposed to file first appeal before the ld. Commissioner upto 05-05-2016, however the same was filed by the Assessee on 08.10.2016, which is after lapse of 184 days

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 578/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

denied in the original assessment (dated 23/11/2011) holding that the assessee is hit by the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. In first appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO. In second appeal, this Tribunal held that the assessee is working on a no profit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 577/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

denied in the original assessment (dated 23/11/2011) holding that the assessee is hit by the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. In first appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO. In second appeal, this Tribunal held that the assessee is working on a no profit

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

nature of service rendered as an element of implicit contract is struck down and therefore, the addition of Rs.21.49 lakhs cannot be sustained in first appeal. It is ordered accordingly. 24. Before us, learned DR has relied on order of the AO but could not controvert the findings

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Textron India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 594/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

nature of service rendered as an element of implicit contract is struck down and therefore, the addition of Rs.21.49 lakhs cannot be sustained in first appeal. It is ordered accordingly. 24. Before us, learned DR has relied on order of the AO but could not controvert the findings

Pneumax Pneumatic India P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 205/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. NidhiSirivastava
Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

loss and office maintenance expenses to the tune of Rs.33,93,027/- and Rs.5,45,475/- respectively. Against the said disallowances, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order though deleted the disallowances under challenge, however, enhanced income of the Assessee by disallowing trade liabilities

Chhabra Triple Five Fashions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

ITA 7511/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)

instant case the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.23,32,048/- on account of commission and brokerage charges against which the Assesseepreferred first appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals), who vide impugned order dated 24th October, 2017 while dismissing the appeal of the Assesseeuphold the addition under challengeby

Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6524/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6524/Del/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

sequel thereto, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 2,40,794/- on the aforesaid addition aggregating to Rs. 7,79,270/-. In the first appeal the assessee did not get any relief from the CIT(A) against the imposition of the penalty. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 6335/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 246Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.20,68,578/- respectively. The Assessing Officer, simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), which were kept in abeyance till the disposal of first appeals filed by the assessee and after disposal of first appeals, the Assessing Officer issued fresh show cause Notices

Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 6334/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 246Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.20,68,578/- respectively. The Assessing Officer, simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), which were kept in abeyance till the disposal of first appeals filed by the assessee and after disposal of first appeals, the Assessing Officer issued fresh show cause Notices

Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 6332/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 246Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.20,68,578/- respectively. The Assessing Officer, simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), which were kept in abeyance till the disposal of first appeals filed by the assessee and after disposal of first appeals, the Assessing Officer issued fresh show cause Notices