“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

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax TDS - 2 (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2347/MUM/2024[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri RonakFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh &

Section 191Section 193Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

preferred by the Appellant. 6. Not being satisfied with the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3.1 above. 7. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant took us through the submissions

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax TDS - 2 (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2345/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri RonakFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh &

Section 191Section 193Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

Renu Singh, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2806/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

Section 1Section 153C

made by the AO. relief on the additions so made by the AO. 7. Further aggrieved, assessee filed appeal befo assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. e the Tribunal. 8. When the matter was called for When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Src Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1316/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1310 & 1316/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

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

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Pyramid Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1314/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1313 & 1314/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Pyramid Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1313/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1313 & 1314/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Src Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1310/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1310 & 1316/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Src Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1309/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1308 & 1309/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Src Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1308/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1308 & 1309/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

Jagdish Rasiklal Dave, Ahmedabad vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Jurisdictional AO : the Dy. CIT, Circle- 2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 941/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Jagdish Rasiklal Dave Vs. ITO Asst. Year :– 2020-21 - 4– 3.3 Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the order impugned has been passed

Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1) (Previously Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1518/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Faeza Nisarahmed Soniwala Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) A-605, M.B. Tower Ahmedabad. Opp: Cama Hotel Nr. Asopalav Flats Khanpur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Bxops 6918 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Khandhar, Ar : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, AR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

late filing of the appeal before Tribunal. He accordingly prayed for condonation of the impugned delay of 611 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 3. On the other hand, the ld.DR objected to the condonation of delay, as the impugned being ... parties on the issue of condonation of delay. Though there is no convincing justification for the delay of 611 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, we are mindful of the principle of rendering substantial justice. In this context, we take a lenient view, particularly given that the assessee

Narendra Vishnubhai Mistry, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1473/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

before the due date of filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. It is an undisputable fact that the assessee has paid taxes in India as well as abroad and the tax paid

Shree Vivekanand Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Unjha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-4), Patan

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1003/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee . 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record before us. The additions are as under:- Shree Vivekanand

Sahayata-Nutrition, Health, Education & Research Foundation, Murshidabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 841/KOL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.841/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Sahayata-Nutrition, Health, Education, Murshidabad……………..…………………………………………….…..……Appellant 39/1, B.N. Sen Road, P.O. Khagra, Berhampore, West Bengal-742103. [Pan: Abbcs2243Q] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None (Petition Submitted) Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Final Approval As Per The Provisions Of Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Before Us, At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, However, A Petition For Withdrawal Of The Appeal Dated 14.11.2024 Was Submitted On Behalf Of The Assessee Stating Therein That The Primary Reason For Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was To Secure The 80G Certificate. Later On, Due To Latest Changes In The Income Tax Guidelines & An Extension Provided By The Cbdt, The Assessee Was Able To Obtain The 80G Certificate As Per The Updated Guidelines. In View Of The Above, The Assessee Sought Permission To Withdraw The Present

Section 80G(5)(iii)

withdrawal of the appeal dated 14.11.2024 was submitted on behalf of the assessee stating therein that the primary reason for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was to secure the 80G certificate. Later on, due to latest changes in the Income Tax guidelines and an extension provided by the CBDT ... permission to withdraw the present I.T.A. No.841/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Sahayata-Nutrition, Health, Education, Murshidabad appeal as the objective of filing the appeal before the Tribunal has been achieved rendering further proceedings as unnecessary. 3. We, after considering the withdrawal petition of the assessee and in absence

Kushal Narayan Patel, Mumbai vs. I.T.O, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4910/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kushal Narayan Patel, Ito Ward-26(2)(1), A/102, Sagar Garden, Chs Ltd. Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Lbs Marg, Mulund West, S.O. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Atdpp 3478 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 156Section 220Section 234BSection 234C

section 220 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but could not succeed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record including

Mohd. Hasan Mohd. Gafoor Momin, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2257/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrimr. Mohd. Hasan Mohd. V/S. Ito Ward 1(2) At Kalyan Gafoor Momin बनाम 430/2, Kotwal Shah, Dargah Road, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, Maharashtra-421302 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aekpm0354F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

made u/s 143(3) by the AO was upheld. 5. Aggrieved with the decision of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 23.05.2014. Thereafter, the case has been fixed several times. It is noticed that no compliance has been made by the assessee

ITO Ward - 4(3), New Delhi vs. Best City Realtors (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed on legal grounds, the

ITA 1549/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 153CSection 154Section 246Section 68

Section 246 A(2) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 07/01/2019 while disposing the Appeal filed by the Assessee, restored the Appeal to the file ... cannot be taken into consideration as the Ld. CIT(A) order has been passed in favour of the Revenue. The Assessee filed an Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in ITA No. 7651-52/Del/2017. The Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal remanded

ITO Ward - 4(3), New Delhi vs. Best City Projects (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed on legal grounds, the

ITA 1548/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 153CSection 154Section 246Section 68

Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)(Previously Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)), Vadodara

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

ITA 1572/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

order on 26.12.2023, he forwarded it to his Chartered Accountants, M/s. Mukund & Rohit, for further action, assuming that they would file an appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period. However, the assessee’s Chartered Accountants were occupied with hearings before the Interim Board for Settlement for other clients, which

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, Circle-TDS, Vadodara

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1137/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr DR

Section 10Section 201Section 201(1)Section 22Section 250

addition on the grounds that the employees of the assessee are neither State Govt. nor Central Govt. employees. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the hearing, the ld. AR relied on Section 10(10AA) & Section 10(10C) and also the orders in the case