← 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. Mfar Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2089/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

without dealing with the merits of the case. 3.4 Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 2.2.2022, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 30.8.2024, meaning thereby, there is a delay of 879 days in appeal. 3.5 Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining

M/S. Mfar Holdings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1670/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

without dealing with the merits of the case. 3.4 Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 2.2.2022, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 30.8.2024, meaning thereby, there is a delay of 879 days in appeal. 3.5 Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5515/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

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

Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

assessee and for items at Sr. No.5 to 10 for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 represents that of the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, summary of cash flow for each of the Assessment was also furnished, one for AY 2014-15 is reproduced as under

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5514/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

assessee and for items at Sr. No.5 to 10 for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 represents that of the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, summary of cash flow for each of the Assessment was also furnished, one for AY 2014-15 is reproduced as under

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5513/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

assessee and for items at Sr. No.5 to 10 for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 represents that of the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, summary of cash flow for each of the Assessment was also furnished, one for AY 2014-15 is reproduced as under

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5512/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

assessee and for items at Sr. No.5 to 10 for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 represents that of the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, summary of cash flow for each of the Assessment was also furnished, one for AY 2014-15 is reproduced as under

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5511/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri K.S. KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

assessee and for items at Sr. No.5 to 10 for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 represents that of the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, summary of cash flow for each of the Assessment was also furnished, one for AY 2014-15 is reproduced as under ... delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. He thus, sustained the addition so made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts discussed in detail as stated above and therefore not repeated for the sake of brevity

Beachwood Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5510/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri K.S. KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

assessee and for items at Sr. No.5 to 10 for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 represents that of the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, summary of cash flow for each of the Assessment was also furnished, one for AY 2014-15 is reproduced as under ... delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. He thus, sustained the addition so made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts discussed in detail as stated above and therefore not repeated for the sake of brevity

Sarosh Abdul Majid Zamindar, Bhiwandi vs. Assessing Officer Ward 1(4), Kalyan

ITA 5158/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 144ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

only, he came to know about the passing of the impugned order on 10.10.2023. His tax consultant asked the Assessee to file the appeal before the Tribunal immediately, since the same has already become time barred. Consequently, the Assessee on 18.06.2024 deposited the appeal fee of Rs.10,000/- and sent

Rnr Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3697/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148

Ld.CIT(A) did not accept the contentions of the assessee and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld.AR raised various contentions on the issue of validity of re-opening of assessment by placing reliance on the decisions rendered

Hybrid Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3093/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Chandramouli, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

ground is without prejudice to the other” 2.1 We note that registry has noted a delay of 103 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, the date of impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is 26.12.2023, claimed to have been received on the same date

Ebrahim Essa Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-9(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1188/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-9(2)(4), 115 Dathawala Wstate, Sv Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jogeshwari West, 400 102. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 4720 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prateek Jain
Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee on the merit of the addition. the assessee on the merit of the addition. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Rashmi Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), G B Nagar

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

ITA 3491/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahmn & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Rashmi Gupta, Vs. Ito, Circle 5(1)(1), N G Nagar (Up) Nh-01, Felix Hospital, Sector 137, Noida G B Nagar, Up-201305 Pan :Adrpt7601G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

appeal of the assessee straight forwardly. 5. Being aggrieved with the orders of the Learned Lower authorities, assessee took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 6. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee stated that both the Learned Lower authorities have not perused and gone through the documents

Ravinder Kumar Prop M/S R K Enterprises, Jind vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jind

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex parte

ITA 2779/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Ravinder Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer Ward Prop. M/S R.K.Enterprises 1 Jind Village Nirjan Now H.No. 4626 Near Eklavya Stadium Sec -11 Jind Pan No. Bgtpk2103E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By None Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: The Above Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Vide Order Dated 23.09.2022 Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 31.03.2021 U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act,1961[Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’] 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1- The Impugned Order Is Both Against Facts & Erroneous In Law. 2- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) /Nfac Delhi Has Erred In Having Confirmed The Action Of The Ld Ao In Having Passed An Order U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act Was Without Jurisdiction & Void Abinitio. 3- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Having Sustained An Addition Of Rs 1314400/- Made By The Ao After Rejecting The Explanation Of The Assessee.

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 154

/NFAC who vide his order dated 23-09-2022 partly allowed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. No body attended the hearing on behalf of the assessee. We decided to proceed to decide the issue with the assistance

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4219/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Delhi dated 22.3.2018, relating to assessment year 2009-10. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that in the first round of appeal before the Tribunal this appeal was dismissed vide order dated 16.4.2021 on account low tax effect i.e. tax effect was below Rs. 50 lacas, in view

Mirza Imran Baig, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 13(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1177/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1177/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mirza Imran Baig Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-13(1) [Pan : Apopb7772D] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.Reema Yadav, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.07.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Employee, Having Income Below The Taxable Limits, Sold A Property Along With His Mother & Sisters For A Consideration Of Rs.1,31,10,000/- & Invested The Resulting Capital Gains For Acquiring A Residential House At Hakimpet, Hyderabad For A 2 Consideration Of Rs.26,48,000/-. Notices U/S 142(1) & 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee, But The Assessee Neither Appeared Nor Filed Complete Details Before The Assessing Officer. Therefore, The Learned Assessing Officer Passed Best Judgement Assessment, Determining The Long Term Capital Gains At Rs.13,04,050/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 271(1)(c)

holding that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. But, none appeared for the assessee. 5. The Ld.DR supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the assessee was given sufficient

Nagolu Narasimhulu, Chennaraju Podu vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward (1), Kadapa

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1040/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1038 To 1040/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Nagolu Narasimhulu Vs. Income Tax Officer Chennarajupodu Ward-1 [Pan : Afzpn7191P] Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav,ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala,DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 270ASection 4Section 69A

also upheld the penalty levied u/s 270A and 271AAC of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Assessing Officer

Nagolu Narasimhulu, Chennarajupodu vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward (1), Kadapa

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1039/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1038 To 1040/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Nagolu Narasimhulu Vs. Income Tax Officer Chennarajupodu Ward-1 [Pan : Afzpn7191P] Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav,ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala,DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 270ASection 4Section 69A

also upheld the penalty levied u/s 270A and 271AAC of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Assessing Officer

Nagolu Narasimhulu, Chennarajupodu vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1038/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1038 To 1040/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Nagolu Narasimhulu Vs. Income Tax Officer Chennarajupodu Ward-1 [Pan : Afzpn7191P] Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri K.Abhiroop Bhargav,ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala,DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 270ASection 4Section 69A

also upheld the penalty levied u/s 270A and 271AAC of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Assessing Officer

Allcargo Gati Limited(Formally Known As Gati Limited), Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 190/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

this regard, ld.AR has submitted that the assessee has entered into agreement with slump sale of shipping business. The department has filed the appeal before the Tribunal saying that the profit earned on account of slump sale of shipping business is subjected to tax, for which the assessee has already