← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji vs. Navdurga Yarns LLP, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1287/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1287/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Ichalkaranji अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Navdurga Yarns Llp, 12/537/1, Near Hotel Man, Vs. Shahu Corner, Ichalkaranji-416115 Pan : Aapfn7837F प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Bhuvnesh V. Kankani Shri Amol Khairnar 07-11-2024 31-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.04.2024 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara [“Addl./Jcit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year ("Ay") 2022-23. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Firm. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 22.10.2022 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,74,64,880/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act"). An Intimation Order Dated 07.06.2023 Was Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc Bengaluru (“Ao”) Assessing Total Income At Rs.13,01,40,970/- & Raising A Demand Of Rs.4,16,78,170/-. The Ld. Ao Made An Addition Of Rs.10,26,76,090/- Under The Head, “Increase In Profit Or Decrease In Loss On Account Of Icds Adjustments & Deviation In Method Of Valuation Of Stock (Column 3A + 4D Of Part A-Oi)”. 3. Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Ao Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, The Assessee Appealed Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A). Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), The Assessee Submitted That The Books Of Account Of The Assessee Were Audited As Required Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act & The Audit Report Was Submitted Electronically By The Assessee. The 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 145A

RANDAR AND ASSCOCITES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND ASSOCIATY Decrease in Profit Net Effect 206549216 NIL RAVI RANDAR PARTNER 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : 3 ITA No.1287/PUN/2024, AY 2022-23 “1. 2. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

Genspares & Supply Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1696/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1696/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Das
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and inspite of furnishing the requisite details failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the impugned order. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the strength of financial statements and placing reliance on the decision

Pixel Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1601/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1601/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

exempt income was earned by the assessee and sustained the addition made u/s.69 of the Act. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above-mentioned grounds of appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the details furnished in the paper

Syed Yasrab Ali Quadri, Basavakalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar

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

ITA 2436/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

been quantified. Considering the request of the assessee, we are dismissing this appeal as withdrawn giving liberty to the assessee to come in appeal before the Tribunal in case the issue is not resolved under VSV Scheme, 2024. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Sandeep Vimalchand Gadia, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2404/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Chaitanya A. V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 148Section 194CSection 69A

without going into merits of the case for want of submission from assessee’s side. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is an individual and is proprietor of Kavita Agency dealing in Handloom Sarees

Ritika Daga, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 2402/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

been quantified. Considering the request of the assessee, we are dismissing this appeal as withdrawn giving liberty to the assessee to come in appeal before the Tribunal in case the issue is not resolved under VSV Scheme, 2024. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Srk Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2312/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

assessee, we are dismissing this Page 2 of 2 appeal as withdrawn giving liberty to the assessee to revival of the appeal before the Tribunal in case the issue is not resolved under VSV Scheme, 2024. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Pronounced

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

confirmed the additions. ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 40 of 155 10. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal raising similar legal grounds raised before the ld. CIT(A) as well as on merits of the case. The learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Queens Road, Bengaluru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1290/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

confirmed the additions. ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 40 of 155 10. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal raising similar legal grounds raised before the Id. CIT(A) as well as on merits of the case. The learned

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bengaluru vs. Chaitanya Properties Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 1158/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP and Shri Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

favor of the assessee. . Page 3 of 9 7. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the ld. CIT-A, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 618/Bang/2017. The Bench, vide order dated 23-05-2022, reversed the order of the learned CIT(A) on technical grounds

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1024/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

confirmed the additions. ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 40 of 155 10. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal raising similar legal grounds raised before the Id. CIT(A) as well as on merits of the case. The learned

Ambernath Organics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and stay application filed by the assessee becomes infructuous

ITA 6491/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 154

expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) thus rejected the claim of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. It is submitted that the bank statements, all the invoices are available in order to establish the claim as refund from

Income Tax Officer 5 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6397/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid levy of penalty was allowed by the CIT(A), vide order dated 17/10/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find

Income Tax Officer - 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6396/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid levy of penalty was allowed by the CIT(A), vide order dated 17/10/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find

Income Tax Officer - 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iora Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6395/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

aforesaid levy of penalty was allowed by the CIT(A), vide order dated 17/10/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find

Rotary Club of Upper Kandivali Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 6340/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 800(5)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)

assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 05/12/2024. Accordingly, there was a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay with the appeal documents. 5. After considering the aforesaid facts and submissions

International Gemmological Institute India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6323/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5ASection 80JSection 92E

Assessing Officer and dismissed the ground raised by the Assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. 5. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has placed

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6316/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

preferred by the Assessee challenging the aforesaid levy of penalty was dismissed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessee had preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. The appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of the aforesaid penalty ... dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 15/10/2024. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. In the present case the penalty has been levied under Section 271AAB of the Act which

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

levy of the aforesaid penalty was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated 15/10/2024. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submission and have perused the material on record. During the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal

Bimbisar Nagar Nisarg Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 41(4)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5559/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

aforesaid Rectification Order was dismissed by the CIT(A), vide order dated 06/09/2024. As a result, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 4 above. 6. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record