← 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

Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 12/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page No. 26 reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal appears to be genuine. Hence, the delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same

Vicky Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 11/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page No. 26 reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal appears to be genuine. Hence, the delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same

Kshetrapal Gold Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kshetrapal Gold Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sf-1, Kush Avenue, Mandvi Ni Ward 2(1)(2), Pole, Manek Chowk, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380001 Pan : Aafck 6724 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Is Against Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Rejection Of Books Of Accounts In Contravention To The Provisions Of Act. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. U/S 68 Of The Act Even After Rejection Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 145Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal raising the aforesaid grounds. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 6 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 7. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee challenges the order

Sagar Rajesh Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

ITA 10/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 145Section 147Section 148

13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page No. 26 reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal appears to be genuine. Hence, the delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same

Akash Anand Puri, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 432/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 46ASection 69A

appellant on this ground is dismissed.” The assessee being not satisfied with the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), again filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that during the preceding year 2015–16 relevant to the assessment year

Bapulal Shiwabhai, Yatvatmal vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavatmal

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

ITA 147/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

pertinent to mention here that in the event of assessment concluded under section 144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and on appeal before the Tribunal, the matter, if required, has to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Such amendment is made

Abdul Kadar Mohammad Ibrahim Dosani, Yavatmal vs. ITO - Ward - 1 Yavatmal, Aayakr Bhawan

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

ITA 128/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144Section 69A

pertinent to mention here that in the event of assessment concluded under section 144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and on appeal before the Tribunal, the matter, if required, has to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Such amendment is made

Muthukrishnan Kumaresan, Chennai vs. ITO, Interational Taxation Ward-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2100/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Ms. R. Sumedha (Advocate) for Ms. GFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'ए' न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI मजनीय श्री मनोज कुमार

Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 28Section 40Section 92C

made u/s. 40(a)(i) and the addition made u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal the assessee filed an application

Rajesh Doulatram Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(3), Mumbai

ITA 651/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 68

directed to delete the addition. 3.1 Aggrieved with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 4. Before us, the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 87. 5. The ground

M/S Jain Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 1(1)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4548/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

filed any documentary evidences to explain the relief sought for and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Jain Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 4. A paper book containing 66 pages is placed on record to substantiate the claim

Rajeev Brijbhushan Bhatnagar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(1), Mumbai, Vashi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4501/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rajeev Brijbhushan Bhatnagar, Ito-28(2)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Chartered Accountants 16Th Floor, Commercial Complex, Vashi, D Wing, Trade World Tower, Navi Mumbai-400703. Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Acfpb 2967 G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi/
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 271FSection 54

above finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee Aggrieved with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as is in appeal before

Darshan Vitthal Khedekar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2933/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dasharath Vitthal Khedekar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Gala No. 889, Apmc Fruit Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(3), Vs. Market, Turbhe, 327, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Navi Mumbai-400705. Railway Station, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Anipk 9257 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajinkya VaishampayanFor Respondent: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 69A

hereby dismissed. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds

ITO 34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Prenish Umakant Pachbhaiye, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly

ITA 1664/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-34(3)(2), Prenish Umakant Pachbhaiye, Room No. 233, Kautilya Bhawan, A5, Duhil Castle, Hanuman Road, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Vile Parle, Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Anjpp 4784 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Krishnakumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Pranjal, Karandikar
Section 148Section 68

Revenue is in Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribuna appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced l by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6671/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Date
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 40

80IA Nil Total income (as per Normal Provisions) 2,41,76,15,300 3.3. Being aggrieved the Appellant had preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal against the Final Assessment Order, dated 26/10/2017, on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. Ground No. 1 to 1.3 4. Ground ... extended to Pre-paid Distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 5.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5.5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal

Kala Arvind Jain, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 389/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 45Section 54F

confirmed the additions made by him in the absence of the supporting documentary evidences thereof. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-compliance of the notice(s) issued

Kwokutla Varakanth Reddy, Ranga Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 264/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 264/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Kwokutla Varakanth Vs. Income Tax Officer Reddy Ward 15(4) Ranga Reddy Distt. Hyderabad Pan:Airpr9829P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 142Section 56(2)(vii)

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 5 of 10 ITA No 264 of 2019 Kwokutla Varakanth Reddy 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the addition made

Sri. Paramahamsa Pattina Sahakara Sangha(N), Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tumkur

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

ITA 1800/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Paramahamsa Pattina Sahakara Vs. Ito, Sangha (N), Ward – 3, B H Road, Batawadi, Tumkur. Tumkur – 572 103. Pan : Aanas 1986 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017- 18. 2. There is a delay of 221 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of the appeal. The Manager

M/S. Abz Fujitsu General Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1711/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. (Vice President), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddppaji, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145ASection 154Section 234BSection 37

condonation petition in this regard. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1705/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. (Vice President), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 37Section 92C

relief to the assessee and deleted the addition made by the AO towards interest write off of OG debtors. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for the second time against the disallowance of write off of provision for inventory due to obsolete/bad stock as upheld