← 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

Appu Nutritions Private Limited, Chemmanur Hall, Bangalore vs. DCIT-Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore, Bmtc Building, Koramangala

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

ITA 1720/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2015-16 Appu Nutritious Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O, Idiom Design & Circle – 1(1)(1), Consulting Ltd., Joseph Bangalore. Chemmanur Hall, 1St Cross, 1St Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aabca 7049 M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ajith Kumar, Director Respondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.07.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Nfac], For The Ay 2015-16. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2015 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Kumar, DirectorFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)

side. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Page 3 of 5 4. Aggrieved from the Order of CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Shri. Ajith Kumar, Director of the assessee company appeared and submitted that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were never received

DB Engineering & Consulting Gmbh, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1377/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & It(It)A No.1377/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Db Engineering & Consulting Gmbh, Dcit (International 82/4, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Hulkul Brigade Taxation), Centre, Lavelle Road, Ward No.76, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan :Aaecd 9085 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Susan Mathew, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

after considering the entire submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal only on the sole issue regarding levy of surcharge @ 5% instead of 2%. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities

Vinod Kumar Garg, Uttar Pradesh, India vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3880/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2012-13 Vinod Kumar Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(5), Iib, 85A, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad – 201001 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Acepg1571C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv., Ms. RidhiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

undisclosed income of the assessee. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 250 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed to the old age of the assessee, hence, it is prayed that delay

Defsys Solutions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as having become infructuous

ITA 1715/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1715/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2019-20) Defsys Solutions P. Ltd., C/O Flat No.1, 1St Floor, 1, Dakshineshwar Building 10, Hailey Road, New Delhi ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaccd-5328-D बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) Jhandewalan Extension ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110055 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa & Ms. Ragini Handa, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-2 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Pcit') Dated 28.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, and Ms. Ragini Handa, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153ASection 263Section 274

dated 20.01.2023 for AY 2019-20 in the case of assessee. We find the same very assessment order was subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in appeal by the assessee in ITA No. 758/Del/2023 (supra). The assessee had challenged validity of the assessment order by raising following ground

Sumit Prakashrao Fulzele, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. Initially, at the time of filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised following grounds:– 1. Whether on the facts and in law, the action of order passed by learned

Shree Gururaghavendra Swamy Bhajan Mandal, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/NAG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Milind BhusariFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Benjwal
Section 12

only religious and not eligible for registration under section 12AB of the Act and rejected the same. The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Shree Gururaghavendra Swamy Bhajan Mandal 5. The learned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee submitted that there are two activities

Shree Gururaghavendra Swamy Bhajan Mandal, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/NAG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Milind BhusariFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Benjwal
Section 12

only religious and not eligible for registration under section 12AB of the Act and rejected the same. The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Shree Gururaghavendra Swamy Bhajan Mandal 5. The learned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee submitted that there are two activities

Vijay Vinod Duragkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 339/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

order of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the issue raised by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee being aggrieved, is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that in the absence of proper explanation with valid

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Exemption, Nagpur

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

ITA 129/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.” 5 Nageshwara Charitable Trust The assessee being unsuccessful in first appellate proceedings is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned Counsel, Shri Kapil Hirani, appearing for the assessee, at the very outset, drew our attention to the meticulous

Nageshwara Charitable Trust, Nagpur vs. ITO WD 3, Exemp, Nagpur

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

ITA 128/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.” 5 Nageshwara Charitable Trust The assessee being unsuccessful in first appellate proceedings is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned Counsel, Shri Kapil Hirani, appearing for the assessee, at the very outset, drew our attention to the meticulous

Bani Broto Banerjee, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 57

specific adjudication. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 9 Bani Broto Banerjee 6. Aggrieved by the relief, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on the various points in issue. 7.1 At the outset, we observe that

Attupuratt Ismail, Thalassery vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 804/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoattupuratt Ismail The Income Tax Officer Attupuratt House Ward - 2, Kannur Kadavathur P.O. Vs. Thalassery 670676 [Pan: Abfpi7471M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142Section 144Section 148

savings for want of evidence. Therefore, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,25,000/- . 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. It is submitted before me that the assessee had filed a detailed explanation as regards the source of investment made with Swarnanjali Gold, Wandoor

Zahi Tyres (India) Private Ltd, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

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

ITA 712/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raozahi Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Circle - 403, Pioneer Towers 2(1) Marie Drive Vs. Kochi Cochin 682031 [Pan: Aaacz1096J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(3)

raising several grounds. The CIT(A) vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order

Kozhikode Taluk Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham, Kozhikode vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Circle -1(1) & Tps, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 654/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raokozhikode Taluk Kalluchethu Dcit, Circle -1(1) & Tps Vyavasaya Tozhilali Shhakarana Kozhikode Sangam, 36/1871-1874 Vs. T. Ayyapan Smaraka Mandiram Anni Hall Road, Kozhikode 673002 [Pan: Aacak9045Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekshmi Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(i)

Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. DCIT (07.04.2021) confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. It is submitted before me that the CPC ought not have disallowed the claim for deduction

Chavakkad P C A R D Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1 & Tps, Thrissur

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

ITA 622/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(i)

giving a finding that the se has not filed cogent reasons for such huge delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceeded

Chavakkad P C A R D Bank Limited, Guruvayur vs. ITO, Ward-1 & Tps, Thrissur

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

ITA 621/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(i)

giving a finding that the se has not filed cogent reasons for such huge delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceeded

The Kanthallore Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Idukki vs. ITO, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 552/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raokanthallor Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward - 1 &Tps Navnit Building Vs. Thodupuzha Kanthaloor P.O., Idukki 685620 [Pan: Aacak3476H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

case Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT [2013] 37 taxmann.com 137 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceeded

Ammadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)Thrissur, Thrissur

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

ITA 550/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoammadam Service Co-Op. Income Tax Officer - 1(1) Bank Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Ammadam P.O. Vs. Shakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680563 Thrissur [Pan: Aacaa6004F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. It is submitted before me that the AO was not justified in bringing to tax the entire miscellaneous income without allowing the expenses

Thumpamon Thazham Service Co-Operative Bank, Pathanamthitta vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 484/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raothumpamon Thazham Service The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Bank Vaishnav Arcade, M.C. Road Thumpamon Thazham P.O. Vs. Thiruvalla 689101 Pathanamthitta 689625 [Pan: Aadat5434H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------ None ------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called nobody attended despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore after hearing the learned Sr. DR, I proceeded

Muthuvelan Sons Private Limited, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 382/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raomuthuvelan Sons Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer English Church Road Ward -1, Palakkad Vs. Palakkad 678001 [Pan: Aabcm6598B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hareesh C.R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the assessee has discharged the onus lying upon it to prove the availability of cash by producing the cash