← 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

ITO(Exemption), Ward-1(3), Kolkata vs. Suresh Amiya Memorial Trust, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 652/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Kaustav Chakraborty &For Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

these grounds raised by the appellant are allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the Revenue has filed its appeal before the Tribunal. Suresh Amiya Memorial, Trust; A.Y. 2020-21 5. We have heard the rival contentions and the submissions have been examined. The only grievance

Sikkim Cricket Association, Gangtok vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1749/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 12A(1)(ac)

dated 22.03.2024. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The delay was stated to be on account of illness of Mr. Mukesh Agarwal who is honorary member/office bearer of the assessee trust and was not keeping

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. South Calcutta Diesels Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1392/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 153ASection 68

said addition worked out to Rs. 58,80,000/- in terms of Circular No. 9/2024 on 17.09.2024 whereas the limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was fixed at Rs. 60,00,000/- and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. The said arguments of the assessee was countered

DCIT Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. Arihant Plantation Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1238/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250Section 68

been mentioned that the delay of 150 days (whereas as per the Registry the delay is of 171 days) in filing the appeal before this Tribunal was due to non-availability of assessment record and thereafter, malfunctioning of copying machine. However, it is to be noted that the said reason ... account of unsecured loan treating the same as income of the assessee from unexplained sources. The assessee in its appeal before the Tribunal (supra) stated that the assessee had not received any share capital or loan during the year and that all these were opening balances coming from preceding year

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Parveen Singh Hoshiar Singh, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1862/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1862/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Parveen Singh Hoshiar Singh, International Taxation Ward 2(1), 5A, First Street, Iyappa Nagar, Chennai. Pammal, Chennai 600 075. [Pan: Ahlpp7852P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sashank Srivatsan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Shri Sashank Srivatsan, C.A. Submits That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Of ₹.60,00,000/- Fixed By The Cbdt To File An Appeal By The Revenue Before The Tribunal As Per The Cbdt Circular No. 06/2024, Dated 17.09.2024. The Ld. Dr Fairly Conceded & Being So, The Revenue Authorities Are Precluded From Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Sashank Srivatsan, C.A

CBDT Circular No. 06/2024, dated 17.09.2024. The ld. DR fairly conceded and being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, 2 I.T.A. No.1862/Chny/24 since the tax effect is less than ₹.60,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue

Nasima Farook Sundka Nasima Yusf Siwani, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1342/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2012-13 Nasima Farook Sundka Nasima Vs. The Income Tax Office, Yusuf Siwani, Ward – 3(2)(1), No.315, 8Th Cross, Lakshmi Bengaluru. Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaipf 4271 G Appellant Respondent Respondent By : Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate Appellant By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr), (Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Ex-Parte Order Of The Cit(A) On Various Grounds. The Assessee Has Lso Filed Additional Grounds Of Appeal Which Is Placed On Record.

For Appellant: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR), (ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate
Section 143(2)

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. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the documents were not available with the assessee as the case is very

Jain Mahasabha Delhi, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2781/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekshri Sudhir Pareek

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

provisional registration granted under section 12A & 80G granted under section 12A & 80G of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the assessee the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal Tribunal. The assessee broadly made written submissions as under made written submissions as under : [i] that the assessee the assessee has applied for provisional

Jain Mahasabha Delhi, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2763/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekshri Sudhir Pareek

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

provisional registration granted under section 12A & 80G granted under section 12A & 80G of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the assessee the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal Tribunal. The assessee broadly made written submissions as under made written submissions as under : [i] that the assessee the assessee has applied for provisional

Mukul Rani Thakur, Dehradun vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-31, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1483/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

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

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 65B

additions, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) without any avail. Ld.CIT(A) without any avail. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S S.S. Con-Build Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1987/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs. S.S. Con-Build Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-14, Flat No.4, R.R. Apartment, New Delhi 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi Pan: Aajcs7477F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 153DSection 156Section 250Section 254

successful and the CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, being ITA No. 263/Del/2004. By an order dated 31.07.2009, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to re- examine the nature of the expenditure

Mohammad Ahmad, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ahamad V. The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S Royal Associates Basti Pancparia Road Gandhi Nagar, Basti Tan/Pan:Awmpa3926F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144

appeal. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there was a delay of 377 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 07.10.2024 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the Advocate ... along with relevant documents and appeal fee were handed over by the assessee to Shri Manmohan Srivastava, Advocate on 28.07.2023 for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, however, he failed to file the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. It was further submitted that the delay

Ven Singh, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Mehsana

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 728/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Ven Singh Ito, Ward-3 Rabari Colony Vs Mehsana. Opp: Torrent Pharma Ahmedabad-Mehsana Highway Chhatral 382729 Gujarat. Pan : Bewps 6333 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/11/2024

For Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 250

duly sworn affidavit filed before us. 3. The ld.DR submitted no objection to condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned, which was pronounced in the Open Court itself. 4. We, now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us. 5. It arises from

Keshavlal Ishwardas Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1458/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 250Section 69

addition, being the cash deposited during demonetization period, has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the records available before us in detail. 7. It is found that the assessee

Sopan Bandoba Chavan, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 869/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68

ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A)-11, Pune (hereinafter referred to as learned CIT(A)) erred in law and on facts

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 Pune, Pune vs. Kruti Lalitkumar Jain, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1554/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

said transactions as the business transaction is hereby deleted.” 9 7. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Bhanudas Vitthal Mhasurkar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Pune

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

ITA 1264/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 53ASection 54BSection 54F

claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in upholding appellant's claim of exemption

Vijayam Educational Cultural Social Voluntary Service Organisation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 868/HYD/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2024-25 Vijayam Educational Cultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Basheer Bagh, Social Voluntary Service Hyderabad. Organisation, Hyderabad. Pan : Aaeav4049D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Mutta, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mutta, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessment year 2024- 25. 2 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 1 day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal has been

Institute for Steel Development and Growth, Kolkata vs. D.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1908/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

hearing : October 22nd, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : November 19th, 2024 ORDER Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President: The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurugram [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 15.07.2024 passed

Jaspal Singh Bindra, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal are allowed and the Ld

ITA 1826/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have gone through the impugned order and also examined

Thenmalaikhan Saboormydin Thulkarunai Kaznavi, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1780/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1780/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Thenmalaikhan Saboormydin The Deputy Commissioner Thulkarunaikaznavi, Vs. Of Income Tax, New No.7, Sullivan Street, Central Circle -1(4), Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Afwpk 4146R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69A

upon are not of benefit to the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised before the Tribunal reads as follows: 1.1 The very initiation of proceedings u/s.153C of the Act against the appellant being