“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

Maa Sankalp Buildcon, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14 (1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 116/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

addition made by the AO is confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5.1 Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee is a builder and contractor, it does not mean that payments

Prerana Samajik Sanskrutik Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Gadchiroli vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/NAG/2023[00-00]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bhusari a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36Section 36A

provisional registration granted on 04/04/2022 under section 12AB r/w section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee trust filed appeal before the Tribunal. Prerana Samajik Sanskrutik Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha ITA no.376/Nag./2023 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee trust, before us, submitted that the assessee

Waheeduddin Khaja Moinuddin, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 458/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.458/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Shri Waheeduddin Khaja Vs. Ito (International Moinuddin Taxation) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Dgopm7707P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/07/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File His Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 U/S 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. On The Basis Of Statement Of Financial Transaction Filed By The Banks In The Wake Of Demonetization, There Was Information Available With The Department That The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt.Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 156Section 69A

demonetization period and interest credited into the bank accounts. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the statutory notices issued by the Department were not received by the assessee, hence

M/S. Labland Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 608/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeylabland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer #01, 8Th Km, Krs Road Ward - 1(1), Mysuru Vs. Metagalli, Mysuru 570016 Pan – Aaacl2892A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062548837(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) 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 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Confirming The Assessment Of A Sum Of Rs.87,39,282/- As Income From Other Sources Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2.1 The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Income Derived By The Appellant Is From Agriculture Operations, Which Is Exempt U/S.10[1] Of The Act Read With Explanation Of Section 2[1] Of The Act & Consequently, The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 250

Officer, the Grounds of Appeal are hereby dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising 45 pages enclosing therein copies of the following: - “1. Copy of the written submissions dated

Roselabs Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-7, Mumbai

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

ITA 1615/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sahil ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 4Section 5

impugned penalty order passed u/s.271D. However, ld. CIT(A) had not rectified his order which led assessee to come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us, submitted that dismissal of the impugned appeal by the ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Airindia Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. Fateh Granite Limited, Andheri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3484/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

creditworthiness of the share subscribers and also the genuineness of the transactions, deleted the addition, so made. Aggrieved, Revenue is now, in appeal before the Tribunal contesting on the aforesaid three dimensions of section 68. 5 Fateh Granite Ltd., AY 2010-11 7. Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance

Cozy Footwear (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 833/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

authority deleted the addition. Challenging such order of learned first appellate authority, 7 | P a g e AY: 2012-13 Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Undisputedly, during pendency of such appeal before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has initiated the reassessment proceedings. 14. At this stage

Income Tax Officer, Yavatmal vs. Yavatmal Dist. Co-Op. Bank Employee Co-Op. Pat Sanstha Ltd., Yavatmal

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

ITA 359/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Securities (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT(A), NFAC, Mumbai, ITA no.2573/Mum./2022, A.Y. 2013–14, order dated 22/02/2023. The Revenue being aggrieved filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the Assessing

ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Syed Irfanuddin, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 442/HYD/2022[2018-9]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132(4)

appeal are ALLOWED.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 12 of 25 ITA No 446 Capgemini Technology Services India Pvt Ltd 9. The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer

ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Syed Imranuddin, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 437/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132(4)

ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Syed Imranuddin, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132(4)

ACIT Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Syed Zeeshanuddin, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 432/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132(4)

M/S. Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

objections made herein above. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 740 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed a condonation petition stating as follows: z M/s. Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Page 4 of 23 M/s. Paravur Service ... Thiruvananthapuram Page 10 of 23 copy was received from the ld. AO. Thereafter, assessee took a copy and taken steps to file appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee also filed an affidavit from P. Dhanesh Kumar who has represented the assessee before NFAC. He submitted that he was not keeping

Shri. Rafeeq Ismailsab Bairakdar, Mudhol vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tps, Bagalkote

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

ITA 612/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyrafeeq Ismailsab Bairakdar The Income Tax Officer Cts Yadawad Cross Ward 1 & Tps Lokapur Mudhol Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Mudhol 587313 Sector No. 24, Navanagar Pan – Ayspb5817A Bagalkot 587102 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Saidappa B. Gadadi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060531591(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 06.02.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Being A Quasi-Judicial Authority Has Failed Verify The Loan Taken From Shri Aslam I Bairkadar As In The Appellate Order The Learned Cit(A) Has Reiterated The Name Of Appellant Only It Shows That Order Has Been Passed In Hurry Burry Manner Without Going Into Detailed Verification & Simply Stated Assessee Has Submitted Only Icici Bank Account. 2. The Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Not Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard While Confirming The Additions As Every Time The Learned Cit(A) Has Asked "In Support Of Your

For Appellant: Shri Saidappa B. Gadadi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 68

said disallowance of the expenditure of Rs.7,62,267/- and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee filed a paper book containing 203 pages enclosing therein copies of the following: - “1. Facts & Grounds 2. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement

Deutsche Equities India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 8354/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Transaction Charges. Being aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), both, the Assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the Assessee has also filed Cross Objections to the appeal 5.1. ITA Nos. 8354 & 8033/Mum/2011 CO No. 227/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year ... provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. In appeal before the Tribunal it was submitted that the M/s Team Lease had obtained a certificate under Section 197(1) of the Act for receiving income from various parties without

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Equities India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8033/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Transaction Charges. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), both, the Assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the Assessee has also filed Cross Objections to the appeal CO No. 227/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) by the Revenue. The issues ... provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6.2. In appeal before the Tribunal it was submitted that the M/s Team Lease had obtained a certificate under Section 197(1) of the Act for receiving income from various parties

Brij Educational Trust, Meerut vs. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2011-12 Brij Educational Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow A-162, Defence Colony, C.R. Building, Ito, Meerut-250001 (Up) I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aabtb4074C) New Delhi - 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 26Section 263

need any interference and needs to be upheld. 4.3. At the threshold, we note that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. For the condonation of delay assessee has filed the condonation application alongwith supporting affidavit and in support thereof he also filed the written submissions

M/S. L.B. Kunjir, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

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

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

grounds no. 8 and 9 raised by the appellant are DISMISSED.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the additional income of Rs.3,11,76,525/- which ... contrary judgment has been placed on record before us by the Revenue. The Id. DR has pointed that the Department has fifed appeal against the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. D.J. Malpani Vs. ACIT (supra), however, no order by the Hon'ble High Court either staying

M/S. L.B. Kunjir, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

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

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune vs. Lb Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

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

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I