“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

Veena Anand, Bangalore vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Bengaluru., Bmtc Building, Near Khb Games Village, Koramangala

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

ITA 1664/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Veena Anand Acit, Circle 6(3)(1) No. 148, 6Th Main Bmtc Building Bagalur Cross, Yelahanka Vs. Koramangala Bengaluru 560063 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Ahipv3465F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeevan, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 14.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Uploading The Order Of Assessing Officer, In The Manner In Which He Did. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Providing Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant To Put Forth The Submissions Of The Appellant. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Additions Of Rs. 1,40,22,995/- Being Difference Of Turnover As Declared In Vat Returns & Turn Over As Per Financials.

For Appellant: Shri Jeevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone ... reason that the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the CIT(A). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It was submitted before us that

M/S. Deccan Charters Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result ground 4 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1349/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

stating that during the year under consideration the assessee did not have sufficient interest free funds. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A). The learned A.R. drew our attention to the financial statements of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengalore vs. Google Ireland Limited, Dublin

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member), SHRI KESAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Tandon, Ms. Nandita Phal & Shri AnmolFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(50)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90Section 90A

assessee, the relevant portion of the order is extracted in his order, allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. 7. The learned A.R. submitted that as regards the stream of income received

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Bagalur Krishnaiah Setty Vijay Shanker, Bengaluru

ITA 1174/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 54

capital gains as held by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. As a result, the appeal is allowed." Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned D.R. submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Giridhar G. Yadalam (supra) has considered the issue

Income Tax Officer, Thane vs. Sachin Laxman Jangid, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2205/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer, Room No.4, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate, Thane (W) ……………. Appellant Maharashtra - 400604

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme a/w Shri Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254

assessee, the total purchases made from these parties were to the tune of Rs.2,48,49,832. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 23/08/2019 in ITA No. 4311/Mum./2017 the coordinate bench of the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee

Dy.Comm. of Income-Tax 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Daystar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon‟Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon‟Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 43(5)

head Income from business. The Ld CIT(A), however, reversed the above said decision of the AO and hence the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the above said issue. 4. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the assessee

Raghav Agarwalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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 4258/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Raghav Agarwalla, Ito, International Tax Ward 1(1)(1), 13/14, Buckley Court, Room No. 1817, 18Th Floor, Air India Vs. 5 Woodhouse Road, Colaba, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Ahbpa 8174 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal/Akhilesh Deshmukh

Section 1Section 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 3. 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

Sushma Pramod Nimhan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1513/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Prakik B. SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

addition on account of capital gain of Rs.1,76,75,000/- made by the Ld. AO. 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-compliance of the notice

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1081/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Deep Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

confirmed. Therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made were examined. 7. In the written submissions filed before

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal(HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 308/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142Section 142(2)Section 142(3)

only after recovery from his illness he rejoined on 27.03.2023 and started attending the work. Thereafter the steps were taken to file the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that delay in filing the appeal was due to bonafide reasons and the assessee is not benefitted in any manner

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Deva Interiors Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1719/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1719/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. Vs. Deva Interiors Private Limited, 105, K-Block, 16Th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102. [Pan:Aaccd4020E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee-Respondent Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Id. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1604/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1603 & 1604/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Valikaramuthu Subramanian Assistant Commissioner Of Natarajan, V. Income-Tax, No. 104-B, 3Rd Street, Central Circle -3(2), Mangalapuram, Medical College Chennai. Road, Voc Nagar, Thanjavur – 613 007. [Pan: Acypn-0616-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

evidenced by the seized materials has not been considered in the order and did not make any enquiry. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee assailing the action of the Ld.PCIT stated that the proper verification of issue and necessary verification

V.S. Natarajan, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 263

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

directed the Ld. AO to examine the said issue in detail and pass a consequential order as per law. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had made detailed inquiries with respect

Asianet Star Communications Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

ITA 934/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Porus F Kaka, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

against disallowance, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the assessee has earned dividend income

Adirishab Exports Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1708/BANG/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Surajmal Daga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 148Section 68

Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the case was reopened after issuing notice u/s. 148. Originally the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Mangalore vs. A Shama Rao Foundation, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1545/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 250

relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 to 2019-20. 2. There is a delay of 218 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Revenue has filed application for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of these appeals. On perusal of the reasons stated ... allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the FAA, the Revenue has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. 8. The learned DR relied on the grounds raised. It was submitted by the learned DR that the Tribunal Order restoring the approval under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore vs. A Shama Rao Foundation, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1544/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. A Shama Rao Foundation, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1543/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 250

Blr Logistiks (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 4145/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 133(6)

assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. It was submitted that, the assessee furnished relevant details, however, no verification was carried out by the authorities below. In 3 BLR Logistiks (India