“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

Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Karmaveer Shankarrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1135/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mihir M Bapat (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri P R Mane

Section 143(1)Section 43B

rectification order if the claim is found to be correct. 4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in considering

Chandra Gupta Basetty, Mancherial vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Manchirial

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

ITA 843/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.843/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Chandra Gupta Basetty Income Tax Officer Mancherial Vs. Ward-1 Mancherial [Pan : Aenpb6195G] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri Kumaran Ram, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 24/09/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 28/03/2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Chandra Gupta Basetty (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 95 Days. 2. At The Outset Learned Ar Submits That The Learned Cit(A) Recorded That So Many Notices Were Issued & Because Of The Nonappearance Of The Assessee He Proceeded Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit & Submitted That The He Filed An Appeal Before The Learned Cit(A) Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumaran Ram, DR

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

hence, not served on the assessee for appearing before the learned CIT(A). The assessee further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is not intentional, hence prayed for condoning the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. His main plank of argument is that even

Murude Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-22(2)(1), Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

against the aforesaid Assessment Order was dismissed by the CIT(A), vide Order, dated 19/02/2024. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. All the grounds raised in the present appeal are directed against the order

ITO-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bkc Dwellings Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3847/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P.DewaniFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

addition vide order, dated 05/06/2024. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. 2 Assessment Year

ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Gehrilal Rooplal Paliwal, Andheri East

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3614/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 68

addition on alleged bogus purchases to 10% and deleted the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 6. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not discharged the onus of proving the genuineness

Asif Hussain Shah Sayad, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3094/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Mona MakwanaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 197Section 270Section 270ASection 271

upheld the addition of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR at the outset submitted that all the issues contested by the assessee is on one single issue of levy of penalty under section

Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, Ghatkopar East vs. Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 27(1) Mumbai, Vashi Station Complex

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

ITA 2793/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Jitendra Vallabhdas Sanghavi, Commissioner Of Income 13, Marwadi Chawl, M.G. Road, Tax, Circle 27(1), ‘ Vs. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400077 (Pan : Azdps2873H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : None Revenue : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

hearing so fixed by the ld. CIT(A), resulting in ex parte order of dismissal of the said appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have considered the orders of the authorities below and gone through the observations and findings arrived therein. We take note

Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Vashi Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1231/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sushant N. AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filing appeal and dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation vide order, dated 07/02/2024. 5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph number 2 above. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record

Harde vs. Ingh P. Chudasama Prop. Bhavani Transport, Ahmedabadvs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Shri Hardevsingh P Chudasama, The Principal Prop. Bhavani Transport, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Opp. Jain Temple, Income Tax-3, Dholera, Ahmedabad. Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad-382455. Pan: Adgpc0026R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri H Phani Raju, CIT. DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 263Section 68Section 69A

Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed u/s.263 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 360 days in filing the present appeal, as the assessee was not knowing about

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shri. Satya Saibaba Construction, Latur

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

ITA 626/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.626/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69BSection 69C

Thus, he allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal challenging the correctness of the order. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the CIT(A) had failed to appreciate

The Solapur Pyramid Spiritual Trust, Solapur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1248/PUN/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1248/Pun/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)

appellant, rejected the application made by the appellant cancelling the provisional registration dated 02.10.2021. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal assailing the impugned order rejecting the application for grant of regular registration. 4. When the matter was called on, none appeared

Sharp Education Society, Bhiwandi vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 1208/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1185 & 1208/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)

appellant trust, denied grant of regular registration cancelling the provisional registration dated 08.02.2022. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant trust is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal assailing the impugned order denying the grant of registration u/s.12AB. 5. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that

Sharp Education Society, Bhiwandi vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 1185/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1185 & 1208/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)

Adivasi Unnati Seva Mandal, Rajur District Ahmednagar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 948/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(d)

reasons, appellant's Grounds do not succeed. Penalty is confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law. Lower Authorities have erred

Yogesh Nandalal Chande, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-1, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

which was duly reflected in Form no.26AS. The assessee being aggrieved, by the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee submitted that provisions of Rule–128(9) of the Income Tax Rules

Indoworth India Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT(TDS), Circle 51(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 4/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

think fit..” 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 218 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed application– cum–affidavit dated 12/09/2024 praying before the Bench

M/S Indoworth India Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT(TDS), Circle 51(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

Md Afscs Limited Poodur, Rangareddy vs. ITO., Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 707/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 707/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Md Afscs Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Poodur Ward 11 (2) Pan:Aaeam2357D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. Ambika, S. Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Smt. Ambika, S. CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 2 of 5 ITA No 707 of 2024 MD AFSCS Ltd Poodur 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Sri. Sumeru Housing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1471/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Nagarajan, Director of the CompanyFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

deleted, the details being not communicated as requested by the appellant. 1.1 There is a short delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company engaged in the business of real estate and is assessed ... Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 05.06.2024, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us the Director of the Company submitted that the learned authorities below have failed to appreciate that the mere disallowance of expenses

Bharat Kumar Chetri, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1388/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

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. 6. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions and submitted that the ld. FAA has not given credit for Rs.10 lakhs cash withdrawal