“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

Sh. Jagdish Singh, Nabha vs. ITO, Ward, Nabha

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 695/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Dt 18.10.2022 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 249Section 250(6)Section 253Section 3Section 5

Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 03.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2024 आदेश/Order The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order dt 18.10.2022 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. At the outset

Vasant Hirachand Rathod, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(4), Kolhapur

The appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1385/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Vasant Hirachand Rathod 461, B-Ward, Bhawani Chambers, Bhawani Mandap, Juna Rajwada, Kolhapur-416002. Pan: Aeupr6755D. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingate [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 69A

NFAC did yield no favourable results to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of lower tax authorities, the assessee came in present appeal before the Tribunal u/s 253(1) of the Act on two effective grounds viz; (1) assessment was framed without putting the assessee to mandatory show cause

Legend Surface Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2363/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanlegend Surface Developers Private Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 75 (2), 127-A, Central Avenue, New Delhi. Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aabcl3143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)

assessee. He further submitted that since beginning the assessee is not appearing before the Tribunal, which shows his negligent attitude in prosecuting its appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Considered the submissions of ld. Sr. DR and material available on record. We find that the AO vide order dated

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Adani Enterprises Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

ITA 264/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.264/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Acit Adani Enterprises Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-1 (1)(1) Adani Corporate House V/S. Ahmedabad Shantigram Near Vaishno Devi Circle S.G. Highway Khodiyar Ahmedabad- 382 421 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 250Section 37Section 92(3)

coal. Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), which deleted the said adjustment. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal, challenging the order of the CIT(A) on several grounds, primarily related to the deletion of the TP adjustment and the disallowance ... below Rs.60 lakhs, therefore, by virtue of recent CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.9.2024, Department has been instructed not to file appeal before the Tribunal where tax effect is below Rs.60 lakhs. This instruction is applicable to the pending cases also. Therefore, the present appeal of the Revenue

M/S Inland World Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT(Cen.)- Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 935/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 935/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 M/S. Inland World Logistics Pvt. Limited,…Appellant P-221/2, Strand Bank Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaaci5607C] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata-2,…………………………………………..…Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Jain, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit (D.R.) & Smt. Monali Shaha Mukherjee, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 03, 2024 O R D E R

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263

Date of pronouncing the order: October 03, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata-2 dated 11th March, 2024 passed under section

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

appeal was dismissed after considering the written submissions filed. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have gone through the facts of the case. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, however

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

Kolkata who partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the documents and the submissions/evidences filed were examined. Vide submission filed on McNally Sayaji Engineering Limited ... allowed in this appeal, the assessee company now succeeded by Tega Group, will get refund of the taxes deposited. However, in all such appeals before this Tribunal, it has come to the knowledge that the concerned Departmental Representatives/Assessing Officers/Income-tax Authorities, are even not aware of the insolvency proceedings pending

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

Jai Singh Jadeja, Kota vs. ITO-Ward-2(1) Kota, Kota

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

ITA 1169/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: C. P. ChawlaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 199

Assessment Year: 2023-24. 2. The ld. counsel for the appellant has requested for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has no objection to the short delay of 9 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and hence

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. James Hotels Ltd, Chandigarh

ITA 552/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

levied u/s 271D of the Act. It was submitted that against the favourable CIT(A) order, the department has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 12.8 It was submitted that the penalty provision under section 27ID of the Act will get attracted if a person takes or accepts

Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Jalna vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jalna

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

ITA 920/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(6)

appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.36,79,554/- is hereby confirmed.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that non-appearance before

Rajani Prakash Kashid, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 608/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2

also computed by the appellant in the revised computation of income, is confirmed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 4 ITA No.608/PUN/2024, AY 2011-12 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has not appreciated that

Shri Balaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. Addl JCIT(A)-3, Income Tax Bengalaru

ITA 1432/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Balaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal At & Post : Chowka, Tal.: Phulambri, Dist.: Ch. Sambhaji Nagar-431008. Pan: Aaits9855P. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Umesh Ruparel [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

appeal thereagainst before the Ld. CIT(A) did yield no favourable results to the assessee. Aggrieved thereby the assessee came in present appeal before the Tribunal. During the course of hybrid hearing, the Ld. AR Mr Ruparel 3. appeared on behalf of the appellant. Adverting to the Central Govt. Gazette

T and T Infra Limited, Pune vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 291/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 T & T Infra Limited Acit, Circle – 7, Pune A-1, Vishnu Vihar, Bibwewadi Vs. Kondhwa Road, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aaect3902H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Ghia Department By : S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari and Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 80I

therefore, disallowed and these grounds of the Appeal are dismissed.” 10. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 12 The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law 1. The learned

Black Diamond Karmachari Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee being further aggrieved is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 8. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the authorities below. 9. Having heard

Black Diamond Karmachari Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd, Nagpur vs. Incometax Officer Ward-3(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Vinod Sanwaldas Dhingra, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 375/NAG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Oct 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

also supported by a duly sworn affidavit. As per the learned Authorised Representative’s own admission, the delay in filing the second appeal before the Tribunal lies on the part of the learned Authorised Representative and not the assessee and since the balance of convenience lies on the part ... opinion that the profit @ 3% on cash transaction of ` 57,40,900, is justified. Still aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on the record and gone through the order of the authorities below. The learned

Msn Institute of Medical Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 483/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 483/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Msn Institute Of Medical Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Sciences Private Ltd Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcm1030E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas Shri M.V. Prasad & Shri K.S Rajendra Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/10/2024

For Appellant: CAs Shri M.V. Prasad and ShriFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 69

lakhs made u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the addition to the extent

Kaur Gurleen, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.209/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri CS Subrahmanyam and Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 263

bona-fidely in as much as the assessee has waited for the result of the consequential order and then only decided to file appeal before the Tribunal. Learned CIT-DR pointed out that the consequential order in this case has been passed on 24/03/2023 and therefore, argued that the story

Mstc Ltd, Kolkata vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250

intimation nor against the rectification order. 11 MSTC Ltd. : AY: 2021-22 9. The right of appeal is a statutory right and the appeal before the Tribunal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act against the scrutiny assessment