← 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

Shree Gayatri Finance, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 756/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Gayatri Finance Ito, Ward-13(1) 7, Janta Bazar Vs Petlad. Borsad 388 540 Dist. Anand. Pan : Abcfs 7635 L

For Respondent: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

pursuing his case prosecuting. The ld.CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that both the authorities below have passed the impugned ex parte orders without providing

Dinesh Dhirajlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 712/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Krishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

making the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the action of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The solitary prayer of the Ld.Counsel before us was that the appeals be restored back for reconsideration since both the authorities below

Dinesh Dhirajlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 711/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Krishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

making the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the action of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The solitary prayer of the Ld.Counsel before us was that the appeals be restored back for reconsideration since both the authorities below

Dinesh Dhirajlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 710/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Krishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

making the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the action of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The solitary prayer of the Ld.Counsel before us was that the appeals be restored back for reconsideration since both the authorities below

Dinesh Dhirajlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 709/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Krishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

making the impugned addition under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the action of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The solitary prayer of the Ld.Counsel before us was that the appeals be restored back for reconsideration since both the authorities below

M/S. Atri Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2859/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

23/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both the Revenue and assessee are in cross-appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad dated 29.8.2016 under section 250 of the ITA No.2855

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Atri Developers, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2855/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

23/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both the Revenue and assessee are in cross-appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad dated 29.8.2016 under section 250 of the ITA No.2855

Sunita Mohan Patil, Nashik vs. ACIT 1, Nashik

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

ITA 939/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Section 5

assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find the appeal is time barred by 109 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had filed the condonation petition stating that the challan towards appeal filing fees was paid on 10.01.2024, however, due to miscommunication between ... /NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. The ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submits that the assessee’s case was not represented before the authorities

Vitalize Galaxy Private Limited, Nashik vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 882/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.882/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80J

date for furnishing the Audit Report in Form No.10DA for claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The ld. Authorised Representative submits that time line prescribed under Rule 19AB of the Income-tax Rules

Vishwas Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 737/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.737/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

bank filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the CPC. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The ld. Authorised Representative submits before us that in the Tax Audit Report due date of remittance

Ms Diamond Enterprises, Parbhani vs. ITO Hingoli, Parbhani

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 690/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

institution of the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings and submitted that ... satisfaction regarding the reasons for such delay. 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee in the instant appeal are identical to the grounds of appeal

Ms Diamond Enterprises, Parbhani vs. ITO Hingoli, Parbhani

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 689/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

institution of the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings and submitted that ... satisfaction regarding the reasons for such delay. 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee in the instant appeal are identical to the grounds of appeal

Premadevi Rameshchandra Agrawal, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 599/PUN/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.599/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Section 144

Pittle vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (1998) 94 Comp Cas 225, 228, (Del). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the matter was called on, none was present for the assessee despite due service of notice

Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited(Previously Kunown As Kul Urban Development Pvt. Ltd), Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Pune

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

ITA 539/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

rejected decision on individual grounds of appeal is not required.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the AR of the assessee had agreed for the addition

M/S Verstar Technologies LLP, Pune vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1441/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1441/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(1)

vide impugned order, without dwelling into the issues, summarily rejected the claim of the assessee firm. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, the ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee did not press the Grounds of appeal

Cap Gemini Technology Services India Limited(Formerly Known As Igate Global Solution Limited)-M/S Patni Telecom Solutions Pvt Ltd, Changed Name to M/S.Igate Information Services Private Limited Merged With Igate Global Solutions Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 446/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.446/Hyd/2015 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Cap Gemini Vs. Income Tax Officer Technology Services Ward 2(1) India Ltd(Formerly Igate Hyderabad Global Solutions Ltd) Hyderabad Pan:Aacca4255G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(2)

GEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned TPO, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal broadly on four issues viz. (a) Inclusion of 4 comparables viz (i) E-Infochips Bangalore Ltd, (ii) Kals Information Systems Ltd (Seg.), (iii) Persistent Systems Ltd and (iv) Mindtree ... Yokogawa India Ltd reported in (2017) 391 ITR 274 (S.C). 15. Aggrieved with such final assessment order assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. During the course of arguments, the ld.AR has made submissions in respect of comparables which are captured hereinbelow. E-Infochips Bangalore Ltd 17. With regard

Kolkata Police Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

ITA 142/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

also affirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order the assessee brought the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2.1. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order raising the following grounds: “1. That the addition of gratuity paid for Rs.2616795 and leave salary paid

Prem Prasad, Malda vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Malda

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

ITA 12/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

order dated 20.10.2023 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC. 2 Prem Prasad, AY: 2017-18. 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 20.12.2023. 3. That there is a delay in filing this appeal because the counsel to whom the appellate order ... order dated 20.10.2023 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), 3 Prem Prasad, AY: 2017-18. 9. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 20.12.2023. 10. That there is a delay in filing this appeal because the counsel (Mr. Pankaj Baid, Advocate) to whom

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1-(1), Mangalore vs. Dakshin Kannada Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 597/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri A Shiva Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT
Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

Accordingly. grounds of appeal are allowed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned DR, apart from supporting the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, submitted that payer Bank viz., SCDCC Bank

Motilal Lachhmandas Rijhwani, Thane vs. ITO, WD-2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2256/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

appearance and accordingly based on materials available on record, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... that the delay may be condoned. 4. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable