← 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

Kolandapalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Soceity, Kondapalayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Erode

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

ITA 1493/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1493 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kolandapalayam Primary Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society, Ward-2(1), Kolandapalayam, Erugalur, Erode Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode Dist, Tamil Nadu-638462 [Pan: Aacaa1434B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.R.Reshma, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Dr.Samuel Pitta, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2024

For Appellant: Ms.R.Reshma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 80P

NFAC, Delhi. :- 2 -: 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 599 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a Primary Agricultural Society and not conversant with the faceless working

Natarajan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1336/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1336/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Natarajan, Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1B & 1D, Silver Palm Avenue, Non-Corp.Circle-8(1), Ishwarya Nagar, Chennai Kilayanamabakkam, Chennai-600 095. [Pan: Acspn2467N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 250

NFAC, Delhi. :- 2 -: 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 673 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a cancer patient and was having adverse medical issues which contributed

Right Channel Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3507/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2016-17 Right Channel Constructions Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle–13(3)(1), 202, Sakhi Apartment, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Dheeraj Residency, Maharshi Karve Road, M.G.Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai. Mumbai Pan : Aaecr2174D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

enhancement of total income by above said amount. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential apartments. Till the time, a particular

Income Tax Officer Ward 45(1), Civic Centre vs. Raj Kumar, Nangloi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed as low tax involved

ITA 81/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Royincome Tax Officer, Vs. Raj Kumar Ward 45(1), E2, Room D-1/53, Kunwar Singh No.1810, 18Th Floor, Spm Nagar, Nangloi Civic Centre, Delhi – 110041 New Delhi – 110002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Bnopk9324B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143

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

Late Talokchand Kuche Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Pune

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

ITA 1954/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2024

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1954/Pun/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

reject the application filed by the assessee as non- maintainable, without going into merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved assessee trust preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the matter was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed

Vidyamandir Madhyamic Prashala, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1941/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2024

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1941/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vidyamandir Madhyamic Prashala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A/P. Kankavali, Vidanagari, Kolhapur Kankavali S.O., Sindhudurg, Maharashtra-416602 Tan : Klpv00980A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

Rs.18,400/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the matter was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of 3 Vidyamandir Madhyamic Prashala hearing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Trident Power Private Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 453/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.453/Hyd/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan S, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

outset, it is observed from the record that there is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to the belated filing of the appeal, the Revenue filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay and the relevant paras is as under: “There ... appeal belatedly viz they could not retrieve the appeal record immediately. Hence, we hereby condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 4. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle1-(1), Hyderabad vs. Anand'S Gold Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 100/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.100/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Anand’S Gold Private Central Circle-1(1) Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcu0225F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 13/11/2024 आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11/11/2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)] Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Bullion & Gold Jewellery & Other Precious Metals. The Assessee Has Filed Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 31/10/2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,54,546/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT, DR
Section 68

additions made amounting to Rs.15.74 cores u/s 68 of the Act. 6 5. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Learned CIT-DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made towards cash deposited during demonetization period without

Harpreet Kaur Kaushik Manek, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 109/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 161 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal as due to the injury to the assessee in the month of June 2023, the assessee could not file the appeal or approach ... taken on record and the assessee has genuine reason to file the appeal belatedly. Hence, the delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 5.1 As relates to ground no.1, the Ld. AR submitted that the reasons for reopening were vague, scanty and non-specific

Smita Virendra Lodha, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1980/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

appellant on this issue is dismissed and not allowed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to the copy of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer submitted

Sri City Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.807/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sri City Private Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Chennai Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Aajcs8887M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

filing audit report in Form-10CCB, in respect of deduction claimed u/s 80IAB of the Act,. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IAB

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 962/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 10ASection 2Section 234BSection 250Section 32A

amount of Rs. 14.71 crores should be allowed as regular scientific research expenditure u/s. 35(1)(i). 25. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 26. Before us, the Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that prior

Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 1405/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4.2 Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore Page 6 of 14 a paper book comprising 107 pages enclosing therein following copies

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of India, Na

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

ITA 3776/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi a/w Shri Priyank
Section 143(3)Section 43B

filing a letter before the AO. Accordingly, the CIT(A) did not give relief to the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR submitted that as per the NCLT order the merger of M/s Piramal Finance Ltd. and M/s Piramal Capital Ltd. with

Dipika Manish Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3451/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 Dipika Manish Shah, Income Tax Officer–20(1)(4), 51/10, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Ranchoddas Villa, Vs. Lalbaugh, Parel, Bhaudaji Cross Road, Mumbai. B/H Bhattwadekar Hs, Matunga, Mumbai Pan : Allps2530D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aakash Kumar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Aakash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha

amount of Rs.14.00 lakhs as unexplained income of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the same. Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed her return of income for the AYs.2015-16 and 2016-17 prior to announcement

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Amarpreet Anand, Chandigarh

ITA 1040/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Vs. Amarpreet Anand Central Circle-1, 1155, Sector-34C, Chandigarh, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Sector-33, Noida, Pan No.Abzpa4892Q Uttar Pradesh. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No.63/Del/2023 (In Ita No.1040/Del/2022) (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) Amarpreet Anand Vs. Acit, 1155, Sector-34C, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Sector-33, Noida, Pan No.Abzpa4892Q Uttar Pradesh. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Vipin Garg, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.11.2024 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am:

Anand 9 7. Aggrieved by the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) and enhancement action undertaken both Revenue and Assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order as well

Sarika Vitthal Gund, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1836/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

result, appeal is treated as dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the Respected CIT(A)-NFAC erred

Sarika Vitthal Gund, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1835/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

result, appeal is treated as dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the Respected CIT(A)-NFAC erred

Dattatray Ramdas Gaikwad, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune

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

ITA 1556/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Harsh S. Bhuta (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

investment made in jewellery of Rs.30,22,348/-. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that although opportunities were granted by the CIT(A), however, the assessee was seeking adjournments to collate

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1120/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

domestic company paying DDT, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds raised by the assessee relate thereto. 7. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties fairly conceded that the impugned