← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

M/S D B Infratech, Mumbai vs. Joint Comm of Income Tax Range 32(1), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6627/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal Be Condoned & The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) Be Set Aside Since The Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Without Examining The Merits Granting One More Opportunity To The Appellant To Make Out His Case Before The Cit(A) On Merits. Explain The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal, The Learned Authorised Representative For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Was Caused On Account Of Inadvertent Mistake Committed By The Employee Of The Company Who Was Tasked With The Job Of Keeping Track Of The Appellate Proceedings Before The Cit(A) & Was Asked To Arrange For Filing Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee pleaded that the delay in filing ITA No. 6627 /Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2013-14 the appeal before the Tribunal be condoned and the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without ... filed. Resulting in dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). Being Assessment Year 2013-14 aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We find that the order impugned by way of the present appeal was passed by the CIT(A) on 30/05/2023

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6505/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

delay in the absence of any reasonable or sufficient cause. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on receipt of notices issued, handed over the same to his chartered accountant

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6504/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

delay in the absence of any reasonable or sufficient cause. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on receipt of notices issued, handed over the same to his chartered accountant

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6503/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

delay in the absence of any reasonable or sufficient cause. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on receipt of notices issued, handed over the same to his chartered accountant

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6502/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

delay in the absence of any reasonable or sufficient cause. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on receipt of notices issued, handed over the same to his chartered accountant

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5606/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal ... inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the penalty so levied. Against this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd., AYs 2014-15, 2013-14, 2011-12 and 2010-11 4.4. According to the assessee, issue of notional interest

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5605/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal ... inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the penalty so levied. Against this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd., AYs 2014-15, 2013-14, 2011-12 and 2010-11 4.4. According to the assessee, issue of notional interest

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5604/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal ... inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the penalty so levied. Against this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd., AYs 2014-15, 2013-14, 2011-12 and 2010-11 4.4. According to the assessee, issue of notional interest

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5603/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal ... inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the penalty so levied. Against this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd., AYs 2014-15, 2013-14, 2011-12 and 2010-11 4.4. According to the assessee, issue of notional interest

Milan Theatres Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 5040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Tribunal 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in not quashing the impugned penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 totally ignoring the fact that the quantum appeal has been allowed in favor of the appellant company by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA No. 79/Mum/2019 vide order dated 31.03.2022, that was brought to knowledge of the Ld. Commissioner o

For Appellant: Letter FileFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

against the aforesaid Penalty Order was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated 29/07/2024. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On perusal of the Ground No. 3 and 4 raised by the Assessee we find that it has been contended on behalf

Ups Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy C/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4888/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 37Section 92C(1)

since the addition was confirmed under the transfer pricing provisions. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee is on appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that Ground number 1 is general in nature and therefore do not require any education. Ground number 3 raised

Bombay Oxygen Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4406/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. AR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

added back and Rule 8D cannot apply.” 3. There is a delay of 93 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. Perusal of the same states that delay is attributable ... called for, the Assessing Officer has no option but to follow the mechanism provided under Rule 8D. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the submissions made before

Tribhuvan Prasad Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO (20)(3)(4), Mumai

In the result, the instant appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3812/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Pandey, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR

income of the assessee. On further appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the assessee being a senior ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

Ra Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 2632/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali ParekhFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings and declined to grant any relief on merits. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The contention of the Assessee is that order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was issued after obtaining approval from

Siemens Mobility Gmbh, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax), 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

order passed by the AO. The DRP vide directions dated 27.09.2023 confirmed the various additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. Ground No.1 is general

The Bhatia General Hospital, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4665/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 11Section 250

dated 27.10.2023, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Ld. AO. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has taken as many as four grounds. 7. At the outset, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the issue under

The Bhatia General Hospital, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 11Section 250

dated 27.10.2023, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Ld. AO. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has taken as many as four grounds. 7. At the outset, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the issue under

Shell International Petroeum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5509/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

charges of SUN Maintenance Software and treatment of cost allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live application as royalty. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. Treatment

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

charges of SUN Maintenance Software and treatment of cost allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live application as royalty. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. Treatment

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3049/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

charges of SUN Maintenance Software and treatment of cost allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live application as royalty. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. Treatment