← 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, Pune vs. Ms S S Landmarks, Pune

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

ITA 977/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801B(10)Section 80I

allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. 8. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief given by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. 9. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the project of the assessee firm was completed prior

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Pune vs. Ms S S Landmarks, Pune

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

ITA 972/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801B(10)Section 80I

allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. 8. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief given by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. 9. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the project of the assessee firm was completed prior

Limagrain India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 464/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

determined total income at Rs.12,84,27,230/-. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came up for consideration from ground No.2 to 4 of assessee’s appeal is transfer pricing adjustment relating

Chhotelal Ram, Malda vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Malda.

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

ITA 1327/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC was disposed of by order dated 28.08.2023 passed by Commissioner (appeals), NFAC. 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 27.10.2023. 3. That there is a delay in filing this appeal because the counsel to whom the appellate order

Mani Polybags, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2711/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2711/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 M/S. Mani Polybags, The Income Tax Officer, 3/158, Kullurchandai Road Vs. Ward 3, Allampatti, Virudhunagar. Virudhunagar – 626 123. Pan: Aaufm 7313E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Rajasekaran, C.A (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajasekaran, C.A (Through Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

confirming the imposition of penalty u/s.270A of the Act amounting to Rs.1,87,932/-, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.AR on merits submitted that CIT(A) has not examined the details of additions made by AO in the assessment order. It was submitted that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eygbs (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the AO is dismissed

ITA 1586/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(4)

aforesaid order of the CIT(Appeals) for AY 2013-14 on the said issue has been accepted by the department and no further appeal before the Tribunal has been filed by department. 21. Further, the ITAT Bangalore in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 (ITA 199/Bang/2015) dated

Shri. Mudiyappa, Gangavathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1506/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Veeranna M. Murgod, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

Electricals Pvt. Ltd., and upheld the other three additions made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above Orders, both filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal vs. Mudiyappa, Malligevada

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1460/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Veeranna M. Murgod, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

Electricals Pvt. Ltd., and upheld the other three additions made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above Orders, both filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made

Udasin Gangeshwara Krishna Sikhsha Trust, Karol Bagh vs. CIT(Exemption), Ward 52(1), Delhi, Minto Road

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1761/DEL/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : N/A Udasin Gangeshwara Krishna Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Siksha Trust, Ward 52(1), 13, Gangeshwar Dham Marg, New Delhi Park Area Karol Bagh, Civic Centre, New Delhi New Delhi – 5 (Pan: Aaatu5629F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind B. Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A

called off. 4. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of about 13 months in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed to non-receipt of notices. Hence, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute

Anil Kumar Pruthi, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmananil Kumar Pruthi, Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Jagan Nath Ward-1, Hisar. Pruthi, Vs. 165, Sector-15A, Hisar-125001, Haryana. Pan:Aaspp4439J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 133(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), after discussing theoretically many issues, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Anil Kumar Pruthi vs. ITO 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Anand Kumar Chaurasia, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and C

ITA 1481/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

account of commission charges paid are deleted. Accordingly, the appellant gets relief on these grounds of appeal.” Aggrieved, now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, a search was conducted on assessee

ITO Ward-60(4), New Delhi vs. Aravindakshan Pillai, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8886/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer Aravindakshan Pillai Ward-60(4), Delhi Flat No.7A, Mig Flats Vs. Pocket-V, Mayur Vihar, Phase-3, Delhi-110096 Pan:Ajopp0293R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

consequence addition is sustained upto the extent of Rs. 27,52,606/- and balance addition is deleted.” Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. After hearing both sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we noted that these are sundry creditors arising

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

case of the assessee in the preceding year, the DRP rejected the objection of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that one of the arguments which was raised in the preceding year, and which ... still not be covered within the deeming clause of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 27. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have accepted assessee's factual assertion that the payments were for technical services provided by a non-resident, for providing services

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

case of the assessee in the preceding year, the DRP rejected the objection of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that one of the arguments which was raised in the preceding year, and which ... still not be covered within the deeming clause of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 27. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have accepted assessee's factual assertion that the payments were for technical services provided by a non-resident, for providing services

M/S. City Corporation Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 528/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

upheld. The appeal for AY 2011-12 is DISMISSED.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: The Appellant would like to object to the impugned appellate order on the following grounds of appeal, which

M/S. City Corporation Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 527/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

upheld. The appeal for AY 2011-12 is DISMISSED.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: The Appellant would like to object to the impugned appellate order on the following grounds of appeal, which

M/S Kolte-Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 1990/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

grounds taken by the appellant are partly allowed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other- On facts and in law, 1] The Learned

Shubhamangal Sadi Depo, Hingoli vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1652/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69

appeal of the assessee without discussing anything on merits of the alleged cash deposit issue. 8. Further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the grounds extracted above. 9. Coming to merits of the appeal, I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record

Kcvr Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1116/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1116/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kcvr Infra Projects Vs. Acit Private Limited Central Circle-2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaeck2457N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Execution Of Civil Work Contracts, Filed The Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 29.12.2020, Admitting Income Of Rs.7,01,39,640/-. The Return

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194C

evidences in support of the grounds contested in the present appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee, referring to para 6.1 and 6.2 of the Ld.CIT(A) order, submitted that

Tpl-Sucg Consortium, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1110/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 41

assessee against the intimation on 19.10.2022. 11. Against the dismissal of appeal by the Addl.JCIT on 19.10.2022, the assessee had not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal. Against the assessment order dt.24.12.2022 u/s 143(3) of the Act, assessee preferred the appeal before the LD.CIT(A) and the LD.CIT ... oblivious, to the above said fact, and without challenging the appeal against intimation dt.19.02.2022 before the LD.CIT(A) or on rejection of appeal before the Tribunal, assessee now sought to raise the grounds before us. 14. In our view, a separate appeal lies against the order of Addl. JCIT dt.15.11.2022