← 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

Kasper Pieter Tideman, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 81/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Accordingly ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 5 ITA No.81/PUN/2024, AY 2021-22 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee

Faiz Zakir Vali, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/NAG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veen AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 10Section 132(4)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

order, sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer both on legality as well as on merits. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Before

Laxmipathi Sadula, Bhupalpally, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Warangal

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

ITA 538/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.538/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Laxmipathi Sadula Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward – 2 Pan:Atops0711R Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(2)Section 69A

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 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 wanted the notice by post due to the nature of his business

Anita Yogish Pai, Kannur vs. NFAC, Kannur

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

ITA 287/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anita Yogish Pai, Vs. Ito, Kcp13, 200A M/S. N. S. Pai Petroleum, Ward –1 & Tps, Keezhur, Iritty, Kannur. Kannur – 670 703, Kerala. Pan : Anypp 6710 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Jayaganesh, Dr(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Jayaganesh, DR(ITAT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271BSection 275Section 44A

Order of the CIT(A) confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act, assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. None was present on behalf of the assessee. On going through the material available on record, we find that this case can be disposed

M/S.Muthoot Bankers, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Trivandrum, Trivndrum

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

ITA 249/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Muthoot Bankers Acit, Circle - 1(2) Punnen Road Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Trivandrum 695034 Kowdiar Pan – Aaefm0671P Trivandrum 625003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sreenivasan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Swarnalatha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Financial Institution Lending & Accepting Deposits. During Course Of Their Business They Received Dividend Income Of Rs.1,49,12,212/- Which Is Exempt Income & Claimed No Expenditure Incurred Towards Earning Of Exempt Income. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Not Accepted The Case Of The Assessee, Had Invoked S.14 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) & Disallowed The Expenditure Incurred In Connection With Exempted Income & Applied Rule 8D Of The I.T. Rules & Made A Disallowance Of Rs.1,07,06,276/- As Per S. 14A R.W.R. 8D. As Against The 2 Muthoot Bankers Said Order The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A) & Contended That The Disallowance U/S. 14A Of The Act Is Not Correct, Which Was Rejected By The Ld. Cit(A) And, Therefore, The Assessee Had Filed This Appeal Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Sreenivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 250

correct, which was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the assessee had filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal and also a written submissions and another supplementary written submission in the paper book :- “Grounds of Appeal 1) The Assistant

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had set aside the assessment and restored the same to the file of the AO. 4. On the basis

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had set aside the assessment and restored the same to the file of the AO. 4. On the basis

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had set aside the assessment and restored the same to the file of the AO. 4. On the basis

Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust, Kochi vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) but the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had set aside the assessment and restored the same to the file of the AO. 4. On the basis

Smt. Ravishankar Shylaja, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 624/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68

maintainable being out of time. Aggrieved by the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Pune / NFAC the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us the ld. A.R. of the Assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Pune / NFAC dismissed the appeal on the sole

Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Benglauru, Bengaluru vs. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1242/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sharat Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

held as under: 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. On earlier occasion, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal on the issue of assessee being treated as assessee in default u/s. 201(1) and for non-deduction of tax at source

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1241/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sharat Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

held as under: 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. On earlier occasion, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal on the issue of assessee being treated as assessee in default u/s. 201(1) and for non-deduction of tax at source

Manoj Kumar Agarwal HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4250/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

scrip from Rs.551.70 to Rs.55.65 in just 12 months, which according to him cannot be accepted as normal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Manoj Kumar Agarwal., AY 2015-16 & 2014-15 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions made before the authorities

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3264/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

scrip from Rs.551.70 to Rs.55.65 in just 12 months, which according to him cannot be accepted as normal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Manoj Kumar Agarwal., AY 2015-16 & 2014-15 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions made before the authorities

Prafful Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), New Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed as above

ITA 2095/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

terms of the directions given in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) with regard

Narayani Trading, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1015/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Sh. Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)(b)

admit the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudication on merits. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions have been made on account

Ankita Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 41(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 4224/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69B

filed by the concerned entity, deleted the addition. 17. The Revenue being aggrieved with the decision of learned first appellate authority preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. While deciding the appeal, the Tribunal in order dated 26.08.2016 passed in ITA No. 430 to 432/Del/2014 upheld the decision of learned first ... share premium as bogus. While deciding the appeals of the assessee, learned first appellate authority deleted the additions. Being aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. While deciding the appeals of the Revenue, the Tribunal in ITA No.6569/Del/2013 and Ors., dated 28.09.2016 examined the issue in great detail

Nikhil Vijendra Jain, Pune vs. NFAC, Delhi/ Jurisdictional AO, ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 684/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora &For Respondent: Ms. Sonal Laxmidas Sonkavde
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Assessing Officer u/s 69C but sustained the remaining additions. 7. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On facts and in law, 1. The learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

claim of the appellant for refund of excess DDT. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the solitary ground raised by the assessee relates thereto. 6. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that the impugned issue relating

Sangli District Labour Contract Co-Op. Societies Co-Op. Federation Limited Sangli., Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli Maharashtra

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

ITA 151/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.151/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Amit Shintre &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

/NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant society is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the quantum appeal preferred by the appellant society