← 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

Paranjape Pendse Associates, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Pune

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

ITA 1145/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that out of the total addition of Rs.1

Gulam Majid, Sultanpura vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 566/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 566/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Gulam Majid Vs. Income Tax Officer Sultanpura, Hyderabad Ward 12 ( 1 ) Pan:Aohpm3802R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Sufiyan & Mirza Nizam Fareed Baig राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Sufiyan and MirzaFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

gold ornaments and the amount received from his wife. 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 appellant has sold old gold worth Rs.5,31,344/- to various parties

Subba Raju Kondraju, Nellore vs. DCIT-1 Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

Hyderabad dt.31.03.2022 and relates to Assessment Year 2019-20. ITA No.309/Hyd/2022 2 2. There is a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the delay has happened for the reason that office ... unaware of the passing of order by the Ld CIT(A) and hence there is a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. DR appearing for revenue strongly opposed the condonation of delay contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. 3. After considering

Ch Rama Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 153/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ch. Rama Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-99, Ramavarappadu, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada-521108. Vijayawada. Pan: Aacfc0545L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 22 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant ... which may kindly be condoned. 3….. 4…..” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, I find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within

Chandrasekhar Yernena, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 125/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.125/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Chandrasekhar Yernena, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 39-31-68, Gandhi Nagar, Ward-4(1), Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530018, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Abqpy2029N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri N.V. Ramana Murthy, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri N.V. Ramana Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The impugned appellate order dated 31/01/2024 passed

Sree Sai Sameera Pharmacy, Nandigama vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 103/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 103/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sree Sai Sameera Pharmacy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 22-135, Ankamma Temple Street, Ward-1(1), Nandigama, Krishna District, Vijayawada. Andhra Pradesh – 521185. Pan: Acvfs1385F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

provisions of section 249(4) of the Act.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed U/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 21/12/2023, which

Cosmo Speciality Chemicals Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Cr Building, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2766/DEL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2766/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2022-23) Cosmo Specialty Chemicals P. Ltd., 1St Floor, Uppals Plaza, M-6 District Centre, Jasola, Delhi 110025 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaicc-6706-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C.R Building ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Shrey Jain, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 14.05.2024, For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In Appeal By The Assessee In Denial Of Benefit Of New Tax Regime U/S. 115Bab Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act').

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

benefit of section 115BAB of the Act was denied to the assessee in AY 2021-22. 3.1. In appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 809/Del/2024 for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for benefit of section 115BAB of the Act. Merely for the reason

Renu Mehra, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2229/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2229/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Renu Mehra Income Tax Officer, C-117, Sector-8, Vs. Ward 5(3)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Uttar Pradesh. A-2D, Sector-24, Pan No. Adupm1853E Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(4)

were unattended and an ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel therefore submits that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is neither willful nor wanton and the same will be made condoned in the interest of justice. 5. On hearing both the sides, perusing ... find that the assessee had reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly and therefore the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is taken on record. 6. On ground no.1 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is with respect

Chandani Education & Charitable Trust, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 615/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Heard both the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The delay for 48 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal was explained by the assessee to the affidavit dated 28th March, 2024 which appears to be genuine and hence the appeal before the Tribunal

Prem Dilip Gaikwad, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 818/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Revenue. He accordingly set aside the order fresh assessment order. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld PCIT(Central) - Pune erred in initiating proceedings and exercising jurisdiction

Vaibhav Gaikwad, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 817/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Revenue. He accordingly set aside the order fresh assessment order. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld PCIT(Central) - Pune erred in initiating proceedings and exercising jurisdiction

Madhuri Dilip Gaikwad, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 816/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Revenue. He accordingly set aside the order fresh assessment order. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld PCIT(Central) - Pune erred in initiating proceedings and exercising jurisdiction

M/S Kiran Sanran Associates, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

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

ITA 791/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Naveen RanderFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 43C

after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5 5. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in initiating proceedings U/s.263 and passing the order

M/S Capricorn Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 376/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)

Rs.52,59,935/-. Accordingly the grounds raised are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the copy of the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2008 submitted that the own capital

Vasudev Yashwant Abhyankar, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panvel

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

ITA 1146/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 43CSection 56

various decisions, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Aket Foundation, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1223/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraaket Foundation Cit Exemption, Pune Shop No.3, Sidhi Apartment, Building No.20, Shindenagar, Vs. Bavdhan Khurd, Bavdhan B O Puen – 411021 Pan: Aavca1058Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-09-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There is a delay of 53 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(Exemption) had issued a final notice on 21.07.2023 for which the assessee furnished

Shyamkumar Chandulal Sugandh, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 303/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
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 ... directed the Assessing Officer to calculate profit @ 5% on cash transaction of ` 25,41,479. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Keeping

Dasharath Madanlal Laddhad, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

arguments / contentions advanced by the assessee to counter the Assessing Officer’s decision, the addition was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any of his authorised representatives appeared before us to assist

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

section 115JB of the Act. The assessee being not satisfied with the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), is again in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. During the course of hearing, the assessee has filed detailed written submissions, which were also reiterated in course of hearing. Relevant Economic ... full deduction of Rs. 10,02,23,735 during the assessment year in question. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the voluntary retirement scheme expenses were not incurred for acquiring any asset. That, it was incurred in order

Nimshaskiya Madhyanik Shaley Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Wardha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek KumarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(d)

year 2017–18. 2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an application dated 29/05/2023, requesting the Bench