“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

Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Faceless Assessments, Delhi

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

ITA 5472/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmesh Ramesh Jhaveri, The Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of 1 & 2,Bhagyodaya Building, Income Tax, Sarojini Road, Vs. Circle-2(2)(1), Vile Parle (West), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aacpj6530G M.K. Road, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dt. 28-08- 2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟] & It Relates To Ay. 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50.06 Lakhs Made By The Ao U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

income of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted thatthe Fair Market Value (FMV) as on the date of allotment of the flat was lower than the purchase consideration and further, the assessee has paid

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3003/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

partly allowed vide order, dated 14/02/2024. 6. Being aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No.1 to 5: 7. We would first take up Ground No. 1 & 5 raised by the Revenue which read as under ... determining actual surplus/deficit in accordance with Rule 2 of the First Schedule to the Act. 7.4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal on this issue challenging the above relief granted by the CIT(A). 7.5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai. vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2384/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

Punit Pawankumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai Bandra

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4879/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18 Punit Pawankumar Ito Agarwal Kautilya Bhavan, Office No. 3, Room No. 716, 3Rd Floor, 7Th Floor, Crystal Plaza, Bandra East, 337 Anand Road, Vs. Mumbai- 400051. Opp. Malad Railway Station, Malad, Mumbai- 400064. Pan: Azfpa1007K Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 69A

made by the Ld. AO. Punit Pawankumar Agarwal;A. Y.2017-18 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR at the outset submitted that, cash earnings in the preceding assessment years has increased since assessment year 2012-13. This

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT to the Ld. AO to revise the impugned assessment order in the light of the aforesaid discussion that the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the solitary ground raised by the assessee relates thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned assessment order is neither erroneous

Crusade Against Cancer Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5471/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriR.A. Dhyani CIT DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

renewal of approval and not for regularisation of provisional approval. Hence this Application is hereby rejected”.” The aggrieved assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We heard the Ld.DR and perused the materials available on record. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(E). However

Osho Forge Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and penalty is deleted

ITA 523/CHANDI/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 523/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Osho Forge Ltd., Vs. Dcit, बनाम D-42, Phase V, Circle 1, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Ludhiana Punjab 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaco3362I अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

/Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024 आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav VP : The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 28.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. Though the Assessee

Ambai De vs. Than Trust, Punevs.Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1807/PUN/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: Na Ambai Devsthan Trust Cit Exemption, Pune At Post Dhayari Tal Haveli, Vs Pune-411041 Maharashtra Pan No. Aaaaa4094K Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(E) has occurred due to inadequate opportunity of hearing granted

The Nagar Vachanalaya Vita, Sangli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1806/PUN/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1806/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: Na The Nagar Vachanalaya Cit Exemption, Pune Vita, Vs Choundeshwari Chowk Vita Lengare Road, Khanapur, Sangli - 415311 Maharashtra Pan No. Aactt7103R Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non- compliance before the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee submitted its response

Shree Bhairavnath De vs. Than Trust, Punevs.Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1805/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1805/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: Na Shree Bhairavnath Devsthan Cit Exemption, Pune Trust, Sinhgad Road, Vs Dhayari Tal Haveli, Pune – 411041 Maharashtra Pan No. Aaits4575J Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 124(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

application filed by the assessee and also cancelling the provisional registration granted on 06.10.2021 to the assessee. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) has occurred due to lack of adequate opportunity

Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati vs. Sri Vani Educational Society, Anantapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 764/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.764/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Vani Educational (Exemption Ward) Society, Anantapur Tirupati Pan: Aacts9412L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 02/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 14/06/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Mookambikeyan, SR-DR

Section 10

accordingly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned DR submitted that, as per the provisions contained under section 10(23C)(iiiad) r.w. rule 2BC, the total receipt

Bhagwati Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/KOL/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bhagwati Foundation Cit (Exemption) 6Th Floor, 4 India Exchange 10B Middleton Road, Pace, Kolkata-700001, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatb6671L Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee with effect from the date of its issue. 04. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E) , the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and submitted that the CIT(E) has simply rejected the application for registration filed by the assessee on the ground that the trust deed does

Satish Rajaji Rathod, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5404/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

purpose of filing the return of income. Thereafter, the assessee downloaded the order on 13.08.2024 and took the necessary steps for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, it has been submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal was delayed by 105 days which

Mumbai Educational Trust, Bandra Reclamation vs. DCIT (Exem) - 2, Mumbai, Pedder Road

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2530/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Rs. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

given any findings on the merits while upholding the penalty levied by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The ld AR on merits submitted that the voluntary withdrawal of the ground against the disallowance of depreciation before

Ratneshwari Co.Op.Credit Society Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT., Patan Circle, Patan

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1409/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri SN Divatia, AR & Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr DR

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On this issue, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ashwinkumar Arban Co-Operative Society Ltd, [2024] 168 taxmann.com 314 (Gujarat

Maheshkumar Kuberdas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1319/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri SN Divatia, AR & Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr DR

Section 250Section 68

Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Maheshkumar Kuberdas Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– 5. Before us, it was submitted that the consultant, who has been in receipt

Maheshbhai Nagjibhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(10), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1275/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69

Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, it was submitted that given an opportunity these details would be furnished before the Assessing Officer. We find that no prejudice

Jivrajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary, Banaskantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palanpur

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

ITA 1024/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary Income Tax Officer Patel Vas, Village : Hadta, Jadiya Vs Ward-3 Tal. Dhanera Palanpur. Dist: Banaskantha Gujarat. Pan : Azzpp 6148 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Assessee By : Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

assessee submitted that the appellate order received from the NFAC was 2 forwarded to the Chartered Accountant's office for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Upon enquiring about the status of the appeal, the assessee learnt that the Chartered Accountant had inadvertently failed to take immediate action. Upon realizing ... income of the assessee and enhanced the assessed income by this extent. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 7. The assessee has challenged the addition before me by raising the following grounds: 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgoan vs. Sunil Ramnarayan Mantri, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 275(1)(c)

269T of the Act as no loan has been repaid otherwise than by an account payee cheque. 8. Dissatisfied the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 9. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal is not maintainable ... monetary limit prescribed in the Circular No. 17/2019 (Rs.50,00,000/-) as well as Circular No. 9/2024 (Rs.60,00,000/-) for filing the appeals before the Tribunal by the Department. It is the case of the Department that the penalty u/s 271E of the Act has been levied pursuant

Madat Welfare Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

application filed by the assessee and also cancelling the provisional registration granted on 01.12.2022 to the assessee. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(E). As can be seen from ... therefore rejected the assessee’s application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following solitary ground of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT Exemption