“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

Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 709/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Vs. Ito, No.98, 1St Cross, Near White Park Ward – 3(3)(5), Apartments, Kudulu Village, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Bjsps 3665 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Monish Sowkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Dated 29.11.2023, In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Working As A Physical Instructor In The Cambridge Public School At Bangalore. During The Demonetization Period, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Into His Bank Accounts Amounting To Rs.22,53,400/- & Therefore Issued Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act For Which The Assessee Had Failed To File Reply. Thereafter, A Show Cause Notice Was Also Issued To The Assessee For Which Also Assessee Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessee had not responded to the above notices and therefore the NFAC had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Assessee now preferred this appeal before the Tribunal challenging the ex-parte order of the NFAC with a delay of 72 days and prayed to grant one more opportunity ... before the NFAC. The assessee also filed an application to condone the Page 3 of 5 delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and narrated the circumstances under which delay has been occurred. The assessee submitted that he is having an aged father in Mysuru

Shri Neelakanteshwar Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Guledgudd vs. ITO W(1) Bagalkot, Bagalkot

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

ITA 600/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Shri Neelakanteshwar Pattina Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangh Niyamit Guledgudd, Ward – 1, No. Ward No.4 Colleg Road, Bagalkot. Guledgudd – 587 203, Karnataka. Pan : Aawas 7201 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Deepak Gunashekar, Ca, Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024

For Appellant: S/Shri. Deepak Gunashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

operative Society Ltd., in ITA No.453/Bang/2020 (Order dated 13.08.2021). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Rural

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

this Court while deciding the said issue has held as under: “Thus, it is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the apparent sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable. That goods were received from

Tessolve Semiconductor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 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

Shri Sai Arihant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 724/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.723 & 724/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Assailing the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, the appellant society is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether

Shri Sai Arihant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar, Ahemdnagar

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

ITA 723/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.723 & 724/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Officer, Kudal, Sindhudurg vs. Sindhudurg District Primary Teachers Co-Operative Credit Society, Oras, Sindhudurg

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

ITA 582/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.582/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Tribunal as well as various High Courts mentioned in Para No.6.1.4 of the impugned order. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. After

Shrimant Japv Senadhurandhar Religious and Cha Trust, Ahmednagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 550/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.550/Pun/2024 Shrimant Japv Senadhurandhar Vs. The Cit (Exemption), Religious & Cha Trust, Pune At Post Supa, Near Datta Mandir Parner, Ahmednagar – 414 301 Maharashtra Pan : Aakts7133G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Nisha Lahoti and Shri Vijay BansalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

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

other law, therefore, chose to reject the application filed denying registration u/s.12AB of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. On mere perusal of the contents

Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 28, Kolkata

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

ITA 612/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40Section 69C

appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but partly succeeded. Now on the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds:- 3 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Raghvendra Pratap Singh 1.(a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances

L B Saree Emporium, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

remaining amount of addition made under section 68 of the Act and interest expenditure claimed thereon was deleted. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the additions and disallowances confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through various documents placed

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1507/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

learned AO for sum of Rs.4,57,50,000/- is not tenable in law and being deleted.” 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld. DR argued that based on the record, the assessee could not provide any authentic details regarding the communication between

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

grounds that the assessee could provide identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the party M/s Grand Realcon Pvt. Ltd. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. AR supported the order

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Mahaveer Transmission Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2846/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

addition to the extent of 5.47% of the gross profit embedded in such purchases. 15. Aggrieved, the assessee and the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue pleaded for restoration of the addition made on account of the entire purchases and the assessee filed appeal pleading for deletion ... case the AO has not referred the matter for valuation to the DVO, there is no infirmity. 80. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 81. Before us, the ld. AR repeated the arguments taken up before the ld. CIT(A) and also argued that