← 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

Abdullatif Ibrahim Badarpura, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 8406/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153Section 250

Assessee, thus, being aggrieved against the decision of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/-, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner by raising various grounds. 10. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the assessment order and the claim of the Assessee specifically to the effect that

Ashok Hanjaji Mali, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 7804/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153Section 250

Assessee, thus, being aggrieved against the decision of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/-, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner by raising various grounds. 10. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the assessment order and the claim of the Assessee specifically to the effect that

Ashok Hanjaji Mali, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 7803/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153Section 250

Assessee, thus, being aggrieved against the decision of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/-, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner by raising various grounds. 10. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the assessment order and the claim of the Assessee specifically to the effect that

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4007/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Shri Siddharth Srivastava
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3993/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Superways Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3972/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3146/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3145/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3144/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeals are dismissed and assessee's appeals are

ITA 3142/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

Superways Enterpirses Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3140/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

accommodation entries of purchases and sales. The A0 has made similar additions in the assesses of Llyod group which are before me in first appeal. The income in those cases has been estimated at the rate of 5% of sales or purchases, whichever is higher. A0 has observed that

Srhi Sajid Bashir Khan, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 623/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 623/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Sajid Bashir Khan, Vs. Ito, Ward -1, Iqbalabad Bemina Srinagar Srinagar. Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Bxxpk6247E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment was completed on an assessed income of Rs.29.51 lakhs (business profits determined on estimation @ 10% of gross turnover). 7. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) in absence of any response or submissions to notice issued on four separate occasions (as evident

Gurjant Singh, Part Valtoha Patti vs. ITO Ward 1 Tarn Taran, ITO Ward Tarn Taran

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

ITA 615/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C. A
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessee has simply filed an intimation before the AO that an appeal is pending against quantum proceedings). 14. The matter was carried in first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC where the assessee has submitted a written submission where it has been stated that the place of resident

Gurjant Singh, Valtoha Patti Tarn Taran vs. ITO Ward 1 Tarn Taran, ITO Ward Tarn Taran

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

ITA 614/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C. A
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessee has simply filed an intimation before the AO that an appeal is pending against quantum proceedings). 14. The matter was carried in first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC where the assessee has submitted a written submission where it has been stated that the place of resident

Amber Corporation, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan, Thane

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8373/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Though the assessee challenged the said penalty levied, by filing First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however could not get any relief, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order ultimately affirmed the aforesaid penalty by dismissing Appeal

M/S.Allied Digital Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai

In the result the Assessee‟s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8147/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Allied Digital Services Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central 808, 8Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Circile 1(3), 905,9Th Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021. Old Cgo Building, Pan – Aaaca5509K Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 20101-11. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2013 Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S. 153(A) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.5,35,91,882/- & Rs.1,25,66,049/- On Account Of Disallowances Under Section 69C Of The Act & Section 2 M/S. Allied Digital Services Limited

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

appeal of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said decision of the AO in levying the penalty, by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner and also raised a technical/legal issue qua not specifying the charge or limb, under which the penalty was supposed

Kishor Changya Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO41(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7938/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 144Section 147Section 271A

same reassessment proceedings framed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The first appeal is directed against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, in the quantum proceedings, and the second