← 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-1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Gas and Power Investment Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2575/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Gaikwad – Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 250Section 43BSection 617

funded interest loan and similar addition was also made for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10 in the reassessment proceeding. In an appeal before the Tribunal, the coordinate bench gave relief to the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 which was then followed by the ld. CIT(A) for the subsequent

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Gas and Power Investment Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2572/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Gaikwad – Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 250Section 43BSection 617

funded interest loan and similar addition was also made for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10 in the reassessment proceeding. In an appeal before the Tribunal, the coordinate bench gave relief to the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 which was then followed by the ld. CIT(A) for the subsequent

Ashok Kumar, Sonepat vs. Vikas, Sonepat

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed as low tax involved

ITA 1253/DEL/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhito, Ward-1 Vs. Vikas, Income Tax Office, 1812A/29 Vikas Nagar, Sonepat, Gali No. 3 Kakroi Road, Haryana- 131001 Sonipat Haryana 131001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Amqpv5179D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144

present appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs.60,00,000/- fixed in CBDT Circular no. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appeal of Revenue is protected by any of the exceptions to the aforesaid circular. Thus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

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

ITA 2276/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) knocked off the said addition of Rs.2.00 crores. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. CIT-DR, placing emphasis on the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, submitted that Rs.2.00 Crores were not part of the surrendered income

Samsher, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-3, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9864/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh.M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Samsher Singh Vs. Ito House No.11, Garhi Ward-3 Alawalpur, Dharuhera, Haryana Rewari Pan No.Eopps5450P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 54Section 54B

before the Ld CIT(A) who vide his order dated 16-10-2019 partly allowed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld counsel has submitted that the agriculture land being state subject was always outside the purview of any tax by central

DCIT Central Circle-I, Greater Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

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

ITA 6942/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) knocked off the said addition of Rs.2.00 crores. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. CIT-DR, placing emphasis on the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, submitted that Rs.2.00 Crores were not part of the surrendered income

Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri Ward, Ratnagiri

ITA 264/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

sustained and the grounds raised in this regard is partly allowed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle 1, Kolhapur vs. Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Maharashtra

ITA 23/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

sustained and the grounds raised in this regard is partly allowed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the decision

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the A

ITA 391/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

deduction under section 80P may be allowed.” 5. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative assailing the impugned order, vehemently objected to the conclusion drawn by the learned

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 390/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

operative Society Ltd. A.Y. 2012–13 7. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), filed appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative assailing the impugned order, vehemently objected to the conclusion drawn by the learned

Nuevosol Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.958/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nuevosol Energy Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-16(1) [Pan : Aadcn7551K] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 27/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/07/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts & Also The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.2,65,80,027

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)

additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of bad debts. 5. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in upholding the additions 5 made

Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 451/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 80I

confirmed. Accordingly, the ground no.4 of the appeal is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A., submitted that, the LD.CIT(A) has erred both in facts

Narayandas Kishandas L/R Sunil Narang, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 2Section 69A

during the course of search u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

Vivog Commercial Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the connected application for stay (IA No

ITA 1631/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ashutosh, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

raised by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment was summarily dismissed by the CIT (A) and now, aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 07. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the case of the assessee has been invalidly re-opened

Vivog Commercial Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the connected application for stay (IA No

ITA 1630/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ashutosh, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

raised by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment was summarily dismissed by the CIT (A) and now, aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 07. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the case of the assessee has been invalidly re-opened

Natwest Markets Plc, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Natwest Markets Plc Income Tax 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath Aaykar Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Thakur Sarani, Kolkata, West 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, Bengal-700016 West Bengal 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 244A

thereafter, applied rate of 40% plus the educational cess and surcharge to bring the said amount under tax. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal against he said final order. 09. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that having regard to the factual scenario as narrated hereinabove it is clear

Premraj Educational Trust, Trichy vs. ITO Exemptions Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 1638/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1638/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Premraj Educational Trust, 1/9, Ammangudi Andanallur Post, Jeeyapuram, Rs Srirangam, Trichy [Pan: Aadtp1108P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit 03.09.2024 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061979589(1) Dated 04.03.2024 For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)(i)Section 250

Nashik. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 26 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 04.03.2023 was inadvertently overlooked by the Chattered Accountant and consequently

Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation-2(2), Chennai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 1626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1626/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2010-11 Newgen Imaging Systems Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, International Taxation-2(2), No.268, Royapettah High Road, Chennai. Royapettah, Madras, Tamil Nadu-600014. [Pan: Aaacn2041B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G. Shiva Kumar, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)

this case. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer's decision is correct and the objections are not accepted." :- 4 -: Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. We noted that during the year 2011 - 2012 relevant to the Assessment Year, the Assessee debited an amount of Rs.7

Pukar Seva Pratishthan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 5371/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Khona, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

provisional registration granted on 28.02.2023 u/s 12AB r.w.s.12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Act is also not justified. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, assessee submitted a list of objectives of Trust which includes noble objects for various activities. It also submitted an affidavit

Pukar Seva Pratishthan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 5370/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Khona, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

provisional registration granted on 28.02.2023 u/s 12AB r.w.s.12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Act is also not justified. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, assessee submitted a list of objectives of Trust which includes noble objects for various activities. It also submitted an affidavit