“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

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Co Operative Bank Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1898/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1898, 2137 & 2139/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2020-21 & 2020-2021) The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ward 2(1), No.330, Bhavani Road, Erode Perundurai, Erode 638 052. [Pan: Aabat 2523R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Irs, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on both counts. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld.CIT(A) and prayed to condone the delay

Smt. Sumati Sathish Khanderai, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hassan

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

ITA 2014/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Sumati Sathish Khanderai, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 372, Main Road, Belur, Ward – 2, Hassan – 573 115. Hassan. Pan : Blaps 3596 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067756232(1)] Dated 20.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That A Notice Under Section 142(1) Dated 01.12.2017 Was Issued To The Assessee Calling To File Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2017-18 By 31.12.2017. During The Demonetization Period, Assessee Deposited Cash Of Rs.97,80,040/- Into Her Bank Account. The Ao Issued Notices But The Assessee Did Not Respond The Notices. The Ao Issued Show Cause Notice On 17.09.2019 Proposing To Complete The Assessment Under Section 144 Of The Act & Assessee Was Given Time Till 23.09.2019. In Response, The Assessee Appeared On Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Therefore, both the additions made by the AO as discussed above are confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the AO has applied high rate of profit rate while estimating the net profit of the assessee and there

M/S. N S Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1965/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. N. S. Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1103, 20Th Cross, 14Th Main Road, Ward – 5(1)(1), 3Rd Sector, Hsr Layout, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aaccn 6187 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067691254(1)] Dated 16.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 07.11.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.28,04,226/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Assessee At The First Instance Did Not Respond To The Ao’S Notice But Later Responded Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Smt. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43B

respond to any of the notices. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned AR submitted that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were never served to the assesse, due to assessee was unable

Akhila Karnataka Bramana Mahasabha(Regd), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 1955/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Akhila Karnataka Bramana Vs. The Income Tax Officer Mahasabha (Regd), (Exemptions), No.5/1, Shankar Mutta Road, Ward – 1, Shankarpuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaata 8481 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1068118463(1)] Dated 29.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Registered Trust Eligible For Exemption Under Section 12A & Recognized Under Section 80G Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80G

applicable and CPC has disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee rightly. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and learned Counsel submitted that the assessee filed its return of income on 05.11.2022 merely Form 10B could not be filed. Assessee had invested its funds

Qpave Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1685/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Subramanya Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

delay of 51 days for the AY 2018-19 and 34 days for the assessment year 2019-20 in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. On perusal of the record, we find that assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 21.11.2024, sworn before ... very old age could not file the appeal on time. Thereafter, the assessee immediately sought professional advice and was advised to file the appeal before the Tribunal with a petition for condonation. Finally, the ld. A.R. of the assessee prayed that the petitioner would be put to great hardship

Qpave Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1684/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Subramanya Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Chikkannaputtamma Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Pranav G. Ambekar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 234Section 234ASection 250

Puttamma Educational Trust, Bangalore Page 7 of 9 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 13 pages enclosing therein following documents: a) Copy of letter to the Commissioner of Income

Jaya Gajendrakumar Munot, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5322/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhamreFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 250

appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 4 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. In order to support her prayer made in the ITAs No.5322 & 5321/MUM/2024 (A.Y.s 2010-11 & 2013-14) 2 aforesaid application, the assessee ... also filed an affidavit duly explaining the circumstances resulting in a delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and also explaining the reasons for non-compliance to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings before the learned

Jaya Gajendrakumar Munot, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5321/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhamreFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 250

Sanjana Sanjay Kathe, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-34(3)(6), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4314/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

were filed by the Appellant, the CIT(A) declined to interfere with the assessment order. 5 Now the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal which is accompanied by application seeking condonation of delay of 115 days. 6 The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before ... rejoinder, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. It was further submitted that on merits the Appellant has a good case as the Appellant had undertaken intra-day trade loss of INR.353/- from

United Futuristic Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, the present cross-appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4219/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit, Circle – 8(3)(1) Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020 ............... Appellant V/S United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Turf Estate Off Dr. E Moses Road, Shakti Mill Lane Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011, ……………… Respondent Maharashtra Pan : Aabcu7296C United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd., Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point, Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Turf Estate Off Dr. E Moses Road, Shakti Mill Lane Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011, Maharashtra ……………… Appellant Pan : Aabcu7296C V/S Acit, Circle – 8(3)(1) Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020 …………….. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR

Section 250

appeal is delayed by 31 days. Along with its appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal which is duly supported by an affidavit. In the aforesaid application, the assessee submitted that on 22.05.2024 it received an email stating/intimating that ... order passed by the learned CIT(A). Upon receipt of the order, it is submitted that the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, it has been submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal was delayed by 31 days. 3. We find that the reasons

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present cross-appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3674/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR

Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lashkaria Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3547/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

restricted the addition on account of bogus purchased to 10% of the aggregating purchase amount. Therefore, being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, while the Assessee filed Cross Objection. Vide common order, dated 31/08/2017, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue (ITA No.1769/Mum/2016) and partly ... partly allowed vide order dated 17/05/2024. 7. Being aggrieved with the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal and the Assessee has filed the Cross Object against the order of CIT(A) upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The Assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 25(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 612/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ao As Required Under Section 68 Of The Act, The Subsequent Repayment By The Assessee Qua The Alleged Bogus Loans Is Enough To Grant The Relief To The Assessee? 3) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessee Can Be Considered To Have Discharged The Onus Placed Upon Him U/S. 68 Of The Act To Prove The Cash Credit ?"

Section 133(6)Section 255(4)Section 68

Rs.95 lakhs for A.Y.2011-12. The ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition for all the years against which Revenue had come in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Judicial Member had reversed the finding of the ld. CIT(A) citing various reasons and allowed Revenue’s grounds. However, ld. Accountant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 25(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 255(4)Section 68

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 25(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 568/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 255(4)Section 68

Laxmi Pati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department Noida

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2764/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2764/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Laxmi Pati Sharma, L 16/2A, Dlf Phase-2, Haryana 122022 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aosps-5811-H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

hence, the CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings upheld the addition made by the AO. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the assessee Laxmi Pati Sharma is stated to have died

Kapil Stone Crushing Co, Kalka Ji, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2698/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2698और 2697/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2009-10और 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Minal Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

consultant the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). This resulted in delay of more than 12 Years in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. She placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji

Kapil Stone Crushing Co, Kalka Ji, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110002, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2697/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2698और 2697/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2009-10और 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Minal Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Indo British Garmments Pvt. Ltd., West Delhi vs. DCIT, Cirxle-10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2400/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Indo British Garments Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., C-16, Community Circle-10(1), Centre, Behind Janakpuri Delhi. Cinema, C-4 S.O., Delhi-110058. Pan-Aaaci7874B Appellant Respondent Appellant By -None- Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024 Order

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

form once filed, will apply to subsequent AY as well. 9. Challenging the denial of relief by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 10. As per section 115BAA of the Act, domestic companies have the option to pay new cooperate concessional tax rate @ 22% and applicable