← 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

Danaher India Csr Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1984/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Danaher India Csr Foundation, Income Tax Officer – 14(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, B Wing, Art Guild House, Mumbai Phoenix Market City Compound, Vs. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070 (Pan : Aagcd7976H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 8Section 80G

u/s.143(1) vide intimation dated 28.07.2023 whereby the total income was assessed at Rs.5,36,25,783/- against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1. Prior to this, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that assessee could have filed the revised return

Mohamed Iqbal Bawamiya Sayed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4845/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

written submissions were placed on record, which did not find favour with the assessee. The said appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the case records placed on record including Paper Book containing 133 pages. The moot

Mohammed Anwar Ali, Kolkata vs. The Income Tax Officer (Int. Tax.) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4379/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Ghhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

condoning the delay before the CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a non-resident India working in Australia

Tripoto Travel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6250/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brij Mohan Barwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

following reasons recorded in para 5.2 onwards till para 5.8, the 3 appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Accordingly, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- “1. The order is bad in law being the assessee is registered under DIPP. 2. The impugned order passed

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation Circle, Noida

ITA 7276/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

Annexure 1 to Paper-book 4. 10. In this regard it was submitted that in the above case, the Revenue had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) and the relevant ground taken by the Revenue was as follows: ITA No. 7276/Del/2018 & Other

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

ITA 1160/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

Annexure 1 to Paper-book 4. 10. In this regard it was submitted that in the above case, the Revenue had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) and the relevant ground taken by the Revenue was as follows: ITA No. 7276/Del/2018 & Other

Shri Parshwanath Nagari Sahakari Pathsansth, Satara vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 757/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pawan ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 281BSection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

DISMISSED. Accordingly, the ground no.9 of the appellant is dismissed.” 9. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner

Gallagher Service Center LLP, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 693/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Gallagher Service Center Llp, Acit , Pune 401, A,B,C,D,E,F & G, Delta 2, Gigaspace Complex, Viman Vs. Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aaqfg7417F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

upheld the action of the CPC. 3 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. After hearing the ld.DR and on perusal of record we find that the only issue that requires adjudication is disallowance of Rs.1

John Deere India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 692/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Acit , Pune Tower.No.14, Magarpatta City, Cyber City, Vs. Hadapsar,I.E.S.O., Pune – 411013 Pan: Aaacj4233B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

resident and the discussion under section 90 is not appropriate.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4 7. Both the sides fairly conceded that the issue stands decided against the assessee by the decision of the Special bench

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad., Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 34/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

both the AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 presently under consideration. AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 12. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the common grounds in both the AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 relate thereto. 13. The Ld. DR drew our attention

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Aurangabad, Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 33/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

both the AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 presently under consideration. AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 12. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the common grounds in both the AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 relate thereto. 13. The Ld. DR drew our attention

ITO, Ward1(2), Pune vs. Carcanet Infra Projects Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee both are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

initio. Consequently, other grounds of the assessee on merits became academic which he dismissed as such. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and both the effective grounds Nos. 2 and 3 relate to addition of Rs.6,09,50,650/- on account of suppression of receipts without

Narayani Laxmi Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 973/KOL/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: the due date for A.Y. 2023-24. In the return, the assessee has calculated tax liability @ 22%. However, CPC calculated tax @ 40% and did not give the benefit of lower rate of tax provided under section 115BAA of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not opted for falling under this scheme by filing Form 10IC. When the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(Appeals), it was submitted by the assessee that it has filed the Narayani Laxmi Viniyog Pvt. Ltd.

Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 32ASection 33ASection 35Section 35ASection 35C

assessee did not deserve to get the benefit of the provision of section 115BAA of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before me, the ld. D.R. vehemently argued supporting the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 7. I have heard the ld. D.R. and perused

Mrs. Neelam Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.756/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Neelam Agarwal ………. Appellant (Pan: Adcpa3772G) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, , Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkat-13 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 15.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Ao, Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.03.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Revising The Reassessment Order Which Was Itself Invalid & Bad In Law As Sanction For Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Was Not Taken From Prescribed Authority As Per Section 151. I.T.A. No. 756/Kol/2024 Neelam Agarwal, Ay : 2015-16

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

order directing the AO to make the addition of Rs.97,56,500/- on account of bogus share transaction. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly referred to the legal and technical point and referring to the paper book containing 17 pages

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

transaction of the assessee with its group entities abroad by twitching profit sharing ration also. Against this, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has set aside the order with regard to adjustment for difference in pricing between cost of shipment and standard price back

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2052/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Income Tax Officer Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 570, Aayakar Mazannine Floor, Bhawan, Mamasaheb Varerkar Bridge, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Grant Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aaach 0986 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul J. Shah Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J M: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) & Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under: 1. "Whether In Facts & Circumstances Of The Ease & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Order Passed By Ao U/S 154 Rs 250 Dated 31.03.2021 As "Bad In Law Without Appreciating The Fact That Earlier Order Was Inadvertently Passed Only "U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act & The Second Order Was Passed U/S 250 Rs 154 Of The It Act" To Correct These Bonafide Mistake Occurred & Hence The Same Is Covered By The Provisions Of Section 292 B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 292

order of the ld. A.O. including all the additions. 3 ITO vs. Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. 4. Thereafter, the assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed certain claim of the assessee and remanded the matter back to the file of the A.O. in respect

Ravikumar Jamatraj Shah, Mumbai vs. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1957/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Ravikumar Jamatraj Shah Ward -19(3)(1), Room No. 29, A, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai 487, Murad Mansion Building, Vs. V.P. Road (Opera House), 2Nd Parasiwada,Mumbai – 400 004 (Pan : Bcpps5087K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Pooja M. Chhawachharia, C.A Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja M. Chhawachharia, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

sustained the additions so made by applying 25% of the total non-genuine purchases. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals under the name and style

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rag Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4427/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69C

those respective years. Thus, the addition was sustained to the extent of 3% of alleged bogus purchase transaction against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and taken note of the facts narrated above. The issue before us is squarely covered

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

interest income from other sources. 9. Being aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 10. We have heard both the sides. The oral arguments made during the course

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3265/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

interest income from other sources. 9. Being aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 10. We have heard both the sides. The oral arguments made during the course