“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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.150/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Amit Shintre &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

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

ground that no such claim was made in the return of income. 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. As regards the ground relating to eligibility of deduction u/s.80P

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

grounds as well as in the additional grounds. 11. Aggrieved with such relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Peddi Reddy Gari Murali Mohan Reddy, Anantapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 673/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.673/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Peddi Reddy Gari Vs. Income Tax Officer Murali Mohan Reddy, Ward 1 Anantapur Anantapur Pan:Cqgpm4774D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla,DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the business of the assessee is liquor trade and that the deposits Page

Sapthagiri Techno Packh Private Limited, Gajulamandyam vs. ITO., Ward -1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 672/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.672/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sapthagiri Techno Packh Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd, Ward 1(1) Gajulamandyam Tirupati Pan:Aaucs0529F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla,DR

Section 69A

confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before me, the learned Counsel for the assessee Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CA appeared. On the other hand, the Revenue was represented by Shri ... preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) and the learned CIT (A) repeated the same addition. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 4 of 6 ITA No 672 of 2024 Sapthagiri Techno Packh Pvt Ltd 10. I have heard the rival contentions and gone

Polakulath Narayanan Renai Medicity, Kochi vs. The DCIT Non Corp Circle 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 253/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Polakulath Narayanan Renai Dcit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Medicity C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Main Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi 682018 Kochi 682025 Pan – Aaifp7597B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Swarnalatha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2024 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 23.04.2023 In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Running A Hospital & During The Assessment Year The Assessing Authority Had Capitalised The Interest Component Of The Interior Works For The Reason That The Work Was Done Over A Period Of Time & Hence The Interest Till The Completion Of The Work Is To Be Capitalised. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Also Capitalised The Interest Component On The Capital Asset I.E.On The Sewage Plant Since The Same Was Put Into Use At The Fag End Of The Assessment Year. The Ao Also Treated The Interest On Fixed Deposits As Margin Money Under The Head ‘Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 139(5)

accepted and allowed the same. As against the order of dismissal in respect of the two additional grounds, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income – Tax (Appeals) went wrong in law and in facts in approving

Karakurappa, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1, Chikkaballapur

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

ITA 986/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Koushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)(e)Section 249(3)Section 250

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 submitted that assessee is a senior citizen and residing in rural area and notices received were handed over

Shail Gas Pvt Ltd, Ghazaibad vs. Pr.CIT -7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 630/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(via)

Income Tax Act, 1961.  The Long Term loans advanced, sources thereof and receipt of income and interest thereon. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The main arguments of the ld. AR were that the case has been originally selected for limited scrutiny by CASS and hence

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3999/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 192Section 195Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

extent of Rs. 1,76,30,307/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No. 3998/Del/2017: A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 3999/Del/2017: A.Y. 2012-13 Reimbursement of Expenses – Rs.87,40,964/-: Reimbursement of salary – Rs. 33,80,005/-: 7. During

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3998/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR

Section 192Section 195Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

M/S Longview Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 130/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

read with Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 2,02,665/- remain unchanged. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, ld. AR stated that ld. CIT(A) is eared in law by affirming the action of AO making the disallowance

M/S. Torino Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 41(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2470/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, AR

Section 143(1)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Kar). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the CPC has denied the deduction

Parekh Market Co-Op. Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2409/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 81

also made reference the provisions contained in Section 80P(4) of the Act. 5. The Appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. All the grounds raised by the Assessee, being connected, are taken

ITO-24(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Drapewell Garments, Mumbai

ITA 1347/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (CIT DR)

Section 115Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 24/01/2024, passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 7. We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. 8. On perusal

Mahavir Transmission Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2636/DEL/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 69C

made the addition of Rs.4,82,58,537/- which is confirmed. Accordingly these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld. AR relied on the submissions made before the revenue and argued that the submissions of the assessee have

Ashok Ra vs. Aheb Tambe, Nashikvs.ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

ITA 999/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe 1630, Mhb Colony, Nr Kamgar Nagar, Kalyan Bhavan, Satpur Colony, Nashik-422007 Pan: Aeypt7687J. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Nashik. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; In This Appeal Assessee Challenges Din & Order No. Itba/Apls/S/250/2023- 24/1062404804(1) Dt. 11/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The Addl./Jt Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-3, Bengaluru [‘Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Nashik [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

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. 5. We further note that, prior to aforestated cash deposit the assessee had obtained a ‘Gold-Loan’ of ₹8,50,000/- on 12/05/2016 from

Dnyanagan Education Society, Satara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 790/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke

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

compliance of requirements of any other law, rejecting the application filed by the assessee trust. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee trust is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. At the outset, the ld. Authorized representative submits that the assessee trust was not given reasonable opportunity

Hon Shri Babanrao Pachpute Vichardhara Trust Group of Institution Kashti, Kashti vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad

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

ITA 551/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Prasad R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine, without going into the merits of the additions. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s case could not be represented before the authorities proper

Imdad Ul Fuqaraa Trust, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 411/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.387 & 411/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Imdad Ul Fuqaraa Vs. Income Tax Officer Trust (Exemption) Hyderabad Ward 1(2) Pan:Aabti9376C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

take the benefit by filing separate application. Since the issue was not resolved for long period, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 518 days. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, submitted that the delay in filing

Imdad Ul Fuqaraa Trust, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 387/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad01 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

M/S. Idea Cellular Limited, Indore vs. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 111/IND/2015[2013-14 (Quarter 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13 to 15, which reads thus; “13. We have perused the orders and heard the rival ... order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal wherein the following arguments were raised: Page 18 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea