“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

Raniben Khimji Patel, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Savla, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 57

grounds of appeal” 3. We note that there is a delay of 580 days in the filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. From the perusal of the same and considering the explanation furnished, we find ... absence of any details and clarifications, ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Raniben Khimji Patel, AY 2017-18 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for restoration of the matter back

Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-4, Pune

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

ITA 636/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.636/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs. Pr.Cit-4, Maryadit, Pune Ist Floor, Panbajar Building, Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market Yard, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaaa4259L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 263Section 5

assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of about 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant had filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay. We have gone through the averments made in the condonation petition ... frame the assessment order. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. Pr.CIT, the appellant society is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the validity

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Nasshik, Nashik vs. Harsh Constructions Private Limited, Nashik

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

ITA 302/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133Section 133(5)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

addition of Rs.4,38,96,8887- is accordingly deleted.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Chakilam Ramanaiah, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 265/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 265/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Chakilam Ramanaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 9(1) Pan:Aatpc4016H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Vvs Ankith राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate VVS AnkithFor Respondent: : Smt.Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(3)

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without admitting additional

M/S Innovtive Microfinance for Poverty Alleviation, Chennai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Chennai Circle, Chennai

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

ITA 164/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

judgment, it has been held that the principle of res-judicata is not applicable in income tax proceedings. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copy of Memorandum of Association and argued that the assessee before AO as well

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd, Chennai

In the result, aforesaid grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2799/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2799/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. The Dcit, M/S. Consolidated Corporate Circle-1(2), Construction Chennai. Consortium Ltd., No.3, Ii Link Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacc 4214 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 10Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

Consortium Ltd. :: 6 :: assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7.1 We have heard the rival contentions. While adjudicating similar issue raised in earlier assessment years vide order dated 06.01.2016, the Tribunal

Abhay Singh, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 768/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 69A

except with a nominal relief of Rs. 6,05,773/-.Aggrieved with the order of the Ld CIT(A), the assessee is appeal before the Tribunal praying to delete the addition confirmed by him for which the assessee has filed detailed written submission before the Bench. 3.3 On the other

Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 326/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Completion Of Assessment By Passing A Speaking Order.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45

Merely for the reason that the legal representative of the deceased-assessee has come on record at the stage of second appeal before the Tribunal, it will not entitle him to say that he should be afforded sufficient opportunity to dispute the assessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer

Sri. A. S. Srinath (HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 228/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeya.S. Srinath (Huf) The Income Tax Officer No. 1, Mallikarjuna Nilaya Ward 1 & Tps 1St Cross, Hosamane Jail Road Vs. No.75, 100 Feet Road Shivamogga 577201 Gopal Gowda Exten. Pan – Aamha9965J Shivamoga 577201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2024 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 09.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/250/2023-24/1059510032(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Passed On Assuming The Facts Which Are Unrealistic. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Provisions Of The Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Estimating The Agricultural Expenditure At A Certain Percentage Of Agricultural Income Is Against The Fact, As The Increase In The Gross Receipts May Be For Various Reasons, Which Are Not Dependent On Agricultural Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

Assessing Officer, and thus, the Assessment Order is confirmed.” Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee filed a paper book comprising 10 pages enclosing therein the written submissions, copy of RTC for land holding, copy

Seema Heera, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 274Section 54

income, held that her claim of deduction u/s. 54 amounting to ₹ 93,17,462/- is not an allowable. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. In respect of non-filing of return by the assessee, Ld. counsel submitted that assessee was of the view that there

Ravi Nirman Nigam Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4324/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 269SSection 270Section 271D

also noted that, penalty proceedings emanate from the assessment proceedings. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly emphasized on ground No.1 taken before us. He placed reliance on the decision

Kohler India Corporation Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 435/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareeksa No.63/Del/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.435/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2021-22

For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250

verification towards eligibility of set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation in accordance with law. 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. In support of grounds raised, the ld. Counsel reiterated that the submissions made before the lower authorities and adverted to the declaration

Mohan Kumar Sharma, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward 5(1)5, Noida

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 3687/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3687/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13)

For Appellant: Sh. Hemant Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul Sr. DR

Section 154

time consumed in the present proceedings shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation while counting the delay in filing the fresh Appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Mohan Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO 4. In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Atul Punj, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3140/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &

Section 131Section 147

personal benefit of the appellant, is not sustainable and is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and the ld. AR supported the order ... expenditure and it cannot be said that the said manpower were utilized for the personal use of assessee. 20. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 9 Atul Punj 21. Before us, the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and the ld. AR supported the order

Ericsson India Global Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Spl. Range 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2368/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 90Section 92C

cannot be extended to include modified return filed in pursuance to section 92CD(1) of the Act. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The ld. AR submitted that the Assessee renders services to numerous Ericsson group entities based outside India and receives income from these entities

Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2)(Formerly ITO, Ward-3(3)(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 87/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

order passed by the AO, and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. 5. Still Aggrieved , the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. It is observed that this appeal is filed belatedly by 34 days beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) , and the assessee ... same , it came to be known that the order has already been passed and immediately, thereafter, the assessee proceeded to file the appeal with the Tribunal. The assessee has prayed in the affidavit to condone the delay of 34 days in filing this appeal belatedly with the ITAT beyond

Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), (Formerly ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 85/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Baba Shivaji Khawale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 843/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.830 & 843/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Baba Shivaji Khawale, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Sr.No.1264, Pune Near Nagaraj Body Builder, Chikhali, Pune – 411 062 Maharashtra Pan : Bqapk3725R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. The ld. AR submits that the appellant could not cause any appearance before the authorities as the communication

Baba Shivaji Khawale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 830/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B.B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Kai Mahdevekrao Baburao Autade Pratishthan, Solapur vs. CIT Exemption Circle, Pune

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

ITA 572/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 Learned counsel for the assessee filed the CBDT’s circular no.7/2004 dated 25.04.2024 and submitted that in view of the same, the matter