← 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

Saket M Jain (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application-Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 250

dismissal of the appeal of the assessee by ld. CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 24.03.2023. 5. Still aggrieved , the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal , and when this appeal was called for hearing before Division Bench, it was observed that an adjournment 8 I.T.A No.314/Ahd/2023

Ramesh Malikarjun Potdar, Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Osmanabad

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

ITA 831/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.831/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Satyajit Mandal
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144A

rejecting the contentions of the appellant dismissed the appeal, confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. At the outset, I find that pursuant to the directions

Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 117/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 17(3)Section 89

confirmed. All grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 11. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the Financial Scheme for the employees at Aurangabad of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., copy

Parag Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1106/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1106/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri Satyajit Mandal
Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(f)

that the appellant itself had stated in Form No.35 that said intimation was served on 10.12.2020. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. The only issue that arises for my consideration

Yugandhar Chevula, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Nellore

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

ITA 552/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Yugandhar Chevula Vs. Income Tax Officer Nellore Ward – 2 Pan:Afepc1696R Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54

Officer and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 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 assessee primarily constructed the property for residential purpose, but later

Laxmaiah Enuguri, Gadwal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 359/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Laxmaiah Enuguri Vs. Income Tax Officer Gadwal Ward – 1 Pan:Aanpe9766E Mahaboobnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 144B

assessee on the ground of “barred by limitation”. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 2 of 4 ITA No 359 of 2024 Laxmaiah Enuguri 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could

Anjana Chaudhury, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Cir. (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 881/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 68

assessee approached ld. CIT(A) and there also the action of ld. AO was upheld, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. 1.2. Before us this matter has been agitated through the following grounds of appeal: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing

Banyan Tree Diagnostics and Research Centre, R T Nagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 595/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeybanyan Tree Diagnositc & Ito, Ward - 6(3)(1) Research Centre Bmtc Building No. 10, 1St Main, 1St Cross Koramangala Vs. Bangalore 560095 Devegowda Road, R.T. Nagar Bangalore 560032 Pan – Aapfb7186F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

admitted & dismissed the Appeal for Statistical purposes. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 79 pages enclosing therein as detailed below- 4 Banyan Tree Diagnositc and Research Centre

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2415/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee. 22.4. Being aggrieved the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 22.5. Having considered the rival and on perusal of records, we find that identical issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2413/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee. 22.4. Being aggrieved the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 22.5. Having considered the rival and on perusal of records, we find that identical issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -16(2), Mumbai

ITA 2411/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

disallowance by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee. 22.4. Being aggrieved the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 22.5. Having considered the rival and on perusal of records, we find that identical issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal ... Assessee. The aforesaid disallowance amounting to INR 14,31,415/- was deleted by the CIT(A) and therefore, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 23.2. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record including the details of advertisement and publicity expenses as stated

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2277/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

disallowance by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee. 22.4. Being aggrieved the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 22.5. Having considered the rival and on perusal of records, we find that identical issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal ... Assessee. The aforesaid disallowance amounting to INR 14,31,415/- was deleted by the CIT(A) and therefore, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 23.2. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record including the details of advertisement and publicity expenses as stated

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2274/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee. 22.4. Being aggrieved the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 22.5. Having considered the rival and on perusal of records, we find that identical issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2273/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gnr, Gandhinagar vs. Rgvp Energy Sources, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the Cross-

ITA 67/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“CIT(A)” in short) dated 16.11.2023 passed

Swaminarayan Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1411/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Acit बना 1, Ashok Chambers Circle-3(1) Opp. Pathak Gate Police Station Ahmedabad म/ Madanzampa Road V/S. Vadodara 390 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 1932 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) …… "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Kanabar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 9/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/07/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 27/02/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kanabar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35A

order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, who confirmed the disallowance of set off against the brought forward losses. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. 2.4. The AO issued show-cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s ... placed out of funds realised form the borrowers and claimed the set-off of brought forward losses. We also note that the quantum appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution and the assessee had no opportunity to argue on the merits

Kapil Alcotech LLP, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 557/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K P DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 68Section 69C

addition of Rs.13,12,365/- and sustained the remaining additions. 4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1) The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s 250 of I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal

Paramita Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-30(1)-, Kolkata

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

ITA 528/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

ground that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. AO has committed wrong thereby declaring the amount

Shriram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 173/CHNY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 14ASection 2

invoking the methodology under Rule 8D. 5. As not satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds. 6. The ld. AR Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate submits that there was no exempt income earned

Nathella Sanjana Anandha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 1(6), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1452/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1452/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Nathella Sanjana Anandha Income Tax Officer, 58, North Mada Street, V. Non- Corporate Ward -1(6), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Agfpt-9718-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Mansoor Ilahi, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Mansoor Ilahi, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

denied by the Revenue. Even the deletion of Rs.30,00,000/- by the CIT(A) is not challenged by the Revenue in appeal before the Tribunal. Admittedly, this cash was deposited by assessee during demonetization period whereas the claim of assessee is that this was received as gifts in cash