“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

Prakash Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 730/DEL/2023[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

Prince Kalra, House No 119 Patiala Gate, Sangrur, District Sangrur, Punjab vs. Sneh Lata ITO Ward Sangrur, Jurisdictional Officer, Sangrur, Punjab

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

ITA 658/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 658/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prince Kalra, Vs. Dcit, बनाम House No.119, Patiala Gate, Jurisdictional Officer, Sangrur, The Ito, Distt.Sangrur Ward, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Burpk0672E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1127/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Prince Kalra, Vs. Dcit, House No.119, Patiala Gate, बनाम Jurisdictional Officer, Sangrur, The Ito, Distt.Sangrur Ward, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Burpk0672E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 68

तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 658 & 1127 -Chd-2024- Prince Kalra, Sangrur 2 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.3.2024 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Though the Assessee has taken 06 grounds

Prince Kalra, H No 119, Patiala Gate, Sangrur, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Sangrur, Punjab

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

ITA 1127/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 68

M/S. Sandip Kiritbhai Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 987/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prithu Parimal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 250Section 68

Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 10.05.2024. It is found that the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) on several occasions resulting in passing

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3), Nagpur vs. Prajwal Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rahul ChandrapurkarFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(19)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

harm’s way and is eligible for deductions under section 80P of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the authorities below. 6. Per–contra, the learned Authorised Representative (“the learned A.R.”) submitted that

Coal Mines Workers Credit Co- Operative Society Ltd., Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 439/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfia RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee on being aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Authorised Representative (“the learned A.R.”) submitted that the interest income earned by the assessee is eligible for deduction under section

Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

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

ITA 212/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

result, this appeal is partly allowed.” The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), filed further appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. During the course ... reproduced above vide Para–7 of this order. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), filed further appeal before the Tribunal. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find

Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Chandrapur

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

ITA 211/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Utkarsh Nagpur Z P Prathmik Shikshak Pat Sanstha Maryadit Nagpur, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 125/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Hence, the ground no. 4 filed by the assessee is allowed subject to the above.” The assessee being aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel, Shri Kishore P. Dewani, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the assessee, along with its return of income, also filed

Dammani Industries, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward, TDS 51(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 121/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 200ASection 220Section 220(2)Section 234E

Para–4.3/Page–2 to Para–4.10/Page–7, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that various Co–ordinate Benches of the Tribunal has considered the very same issue

Ashwin Suresh Chandak, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward, TDS 51(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 107/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 200ASection 220Section 220(2)Section 234E

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

Pune will prevail in this case as well. 12.0 in the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. The assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal with the issues which has been by the learned CIT(A) against the assessee. 6. We have heard the arguments of both

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

Reshma, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nalgonda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes

ITA 982/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha .G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271A

Grounds of Appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the learned Authorized Representa"ve (“learned AR”) submi"ed that while filing the appeal before the learned

Keshava Reddy Nagireddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1), Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.463 & 464/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Keshava Reddy Nagireddy Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adcpn1614N] Circle (1) Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 05/03/2024, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

parte appellate order and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer are ex-parte and the appellate proceedings

Keshava Reddy Nagireddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1), Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

Peddini Ashok Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 356/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.356/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Peddini Ashok Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer- Ward-4(1) D.No. 49-36-13/1 Income Tax Office Nggo’S Colony, Akkayyapalem Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aqlpp3626L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with ... Peddini Ashok Kumar beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 11 days. Therefore, the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case

Venkateswara Rao Madhyahnapu, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 257/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.257/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Venkateswara Rao Madhyahnapu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Eluru, Andhra Pradesh 1-4-5, Padamara Veedhi Mr. D. Balaram House Eluru-534001 West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aespm1820Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 27 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee

Utpaul Pal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 837/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 837/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Utpal Pal,…………………………………..…………Appellant 211, D.P. Mukherjee Lane, Sheoraphuly, Hooghly-712223 [Pan:Aslpp8480G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,….Respondent Circle-24(1), Hooghly, Roopmahal, Khadina More, Station Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101 Appearances By: Shri C.M. Roy, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 69A

Appeals) considered the material available on record and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and also prayed to provide one more opportunity in order to meet the principle of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that

Kusum Surana, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 722/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 722/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Kusum Surana,……..…………………………………Appellant 1St Floor, P-21/1, Cit Road, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054 [Pan:Aizps4681A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-44(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca. & Shri Amit Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

that, ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal raising so many grounds. 6. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to my notice that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals