“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

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)

confirmed and the appellant's ground is dismissed. 82. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment of ₹.1,89,87,750/-, which comprises of purchase

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

ITA 811/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 801C(2)(b)Section 80I

Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A]. Vide order dated 5.11.2003, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 27.10.2005, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and reversed the order passed by the CIT(A). In view of the findings

Gurupadaling Vikraktamath, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gulbarga

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

ITA 808/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri.Deepak Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

deciding the said appeal.” 3. At the outset, the AR of the Assessee submitted that there is a short delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal by 15 days. He further submitted by way of an affidavit that the delay is caused due to the fact that assessee being ... Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. Reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the delay caused in filing the appeal before this Tribunal stands condoned and admitted for adjudication. 6. Now the brief fact of the case are that the assessee being an individual filed

Andrew Jerome Joseph, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 5(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 664/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 90

Andrew Jerome Joseph, Bangalore Page 7 of 11 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section 90 of the Act provides that

Madhuri Bhattacharya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 630/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeymadhuri Bhattacharya Acit, Circle 2(3)(1) No. 363, 11Th Cross Bmtc Building 4Th Main Road, 2Nd Block Vs. Koramangala R.T. Nagar, Bangalore 560032 Bangaore 560095 Pan – Ahepb0337N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1061593922(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of Lower Authorities Are Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed For: A) Non-Consideration Of Material On Record & Submissions Of The Appellant B) Want Of Application Of Principles Of Natural Justice. Without Prejudice: 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs. 1,93,00,000 As Unexplained Investment & 36,00,000 As Expenditure Not Related To The Profession Without Issuing A Show Cause Notice As Mandated

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250

details/compliance made by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 63 pages enclosing therein copies of: - 1. Copy of written submissions dated 23rd May, 2017 along

Krishnakumar Balasankara Subramanian, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 247/BANG/2024[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Preeti Goel, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 245Section 90

noncompliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section

Mr. Muppuri Damodar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

ITA 1231/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 249Section 250Section 69A

costs.” 3. At the outset the learned A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 77 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The reason for filing the appeal belatedly has been sworn by way of an affidavit dated 25.05.2024 filed by the assessee ... case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. reported in [1987] 163 ITR 471, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Before us the learned A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 479/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduce on paragraph 2 above. 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submission and perused the material on record

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3000/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.M. BhattFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Kadar Jawadwala

Section 143(3)Section 263

Company Ltd. the Act. It was brought to our notice that the assessee had challenged the validity of the revision order by filing appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 12.04.2022 passed in ITA No. 950/Mum/2021 has quashed the revision order. Under these set of facts

DCIT CC 3 2, Mumbai vs. Bks Galaxy Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2276/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal on the issues decided against each of them. 3

Section 133(6)Section 133A

granted partial relief in respect of unaccounted income and confirmed the addition relating to professional fees. Hence, both the parties are in appeal before the Tribunal on the issues decided against each of them. M/s. BKS Galaxy Realtors LLP 3. We shall first deal with the issue relating

Vikram Bodhraj Tannan, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1073/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 14A

directed him to compute the disallowance applying the Rule 8D of the Rules. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper book containing pages

Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP (Erstwhile Bks Galaxy Realtors Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 1018/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Tribunal On The Issues Decided Against Each Of Them. 3

Section 133(6)Section 133A

granted partial relief in respect of unaccounted income and confirmed the addition relating to professional fees. Hence, both the parties are in appeal before the Tribunal on the issues decided against each of them. 3 ITA No.1018/Mum/2024 & 2276/Mum/2024 M/s. BKS Galaxy Realtors LLP 3. We shall first deal with

DCIT-CC-5(3), Mumabi, Mumbai vs. Jwl Cold Store Private Limited, Panvel, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3098/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. D/R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

addition made by the AO u/s 56(2)(viib) deserves to be deleted. Hence, this ground is allowed.” 9. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. 11. Above stated facts are undisputed and uncontroverted. Assessee had issued shares

The Salestax Employees Co.Op. Credit Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 612/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16-10-2023 In Din

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep G Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 253(3)

dated 31.05.2024 vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/F/154/2024-25/ 1065306849(1). It is stated in the condonation application that the assessee did not file appeal before the Tribunal, as the aforesaid rectification application was pending with the ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed by the assessee before ITAT on 04th ... appellate order dated 16.10.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is not retrievable/available on record. 6. Still aggrieved, the assessee has now filed second appeal with the Tribunal , and the assessee has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee has received interest on FDR with

Chaitanya Uban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Lonawala-Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(5), Pune, Ward Nine/Five Pune

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

ITA 866/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as “Not Admitted”, without condoning the delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the matter was called on, none represented on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing

D A Satav Alis Karbhari Anna Charitable Foudation, Pune vs. Chif Commissioner of Incom Tax CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 243/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.243/Pun/2024

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282(1)

requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant trust is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. The ld. AR for the appellant trust submitted that the service of notice through ITBA portal

Dinesh Haldia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 384/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 260ASection 69C

some parties, who are available, from whom wool was purchased, third time addition have been reduced to Rs. 1,12,500. 7. în appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that many opportunities were given to the assessee, twice the assessment order was set aside, thereafter, assessments were made ... assessee did not find any favor from the finding of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, he has filed the written submissions