“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

Skanda Kumar Kasturi, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.459/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Skanda Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Kasturi, Kurnool Ward 1 Pan:Actpk0562A Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. P. Sumitha, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 26/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. P. Sumitha, DR

Section 133ASection 68

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 3 of 7 ITA No 459 of 2024 Skanda Kumar Kasturi 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made

Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 21/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.20 & 21/Viz/2024 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 16/372-16-1, Ward-1, Valandapalem, Industrial Estate Machilipatnam. Road, Machilipatnam – 521002, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aifpv 6289 F (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 25/06/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 271Section 69A

amount equal to advance tax due on his income. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ina the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred

Vasu Kumar Vaddi, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 20/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xi)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)(b)Section 271Section 69A

Kulut Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Burdwan.

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

ITA 1049/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 250

confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s grounds of appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. In the course of the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that he was filing audit report as per the direction from the Bench while

Treated Pumping Water Irrigation Farmers Association, Tiruppur vs. CIT Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 978/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.978/Chny/2024 Treated Pumping Water Irrigation The Commissioner Of Income Tax Farmers Association, Vs. Exemption, 1, Mangammal Kovil Premises, Chennai. Palladam, Siddanaickenpalayam, Tiruppur 641 659. Pan: Aaiat 9132B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri.N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai In Form 10Ad Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Application No.Cit(Exemption), Chennai/2023-24/12Aa/11335 Dated 27.06.2023. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 58 Days. The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(Exemption) Dated 14.12.2023 Was Served On The Assessee On 14.12.2023. The Appeal Has To Be Filed On Or Before 12.02.2024 But It Was Actually Filed On 10.04.2024 With A Delay Of 58 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Affidavit Along With Condonation Petition Stating The Reason That Due To The Complexities Surrounding New Regime Of Registration & Delay In The Office Of Chartered Accountant.The Ld.Cit-Dr Did Not Seriously Objected To Condone The Delay. We Find The Cause As Reasonable & Hence, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

adverse inference is drawn against the applicant's existing and valid registration, if any, as per law u/s. 12AB’’. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, it is noted that the assessee has simpliciter made a technical mistake

Navalar-Sezhiyan Foundation AOP-Trust, Chennai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 940/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 940/Chny/2024 Commissioner Of Income Tax Navalar – Sezhiyan V. (Exemptions), Foundation, Chennai. Vit University, Katpadi To Thiruvalam Road, Vellore – 632 014. [Pan: Aadtn-3315-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

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

reason stated above in Para 4.1 of this order, hence, it is rejected and its registration also cancelled.” Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, it is noted that the assessee has simpliciter made a technical mistake

Navkarya Projects Private Limited, Chennai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 1651/CHNY/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

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

Erki Ramesh Upadhyaya HUF, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 476/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 148Section 171Section 234ASection 250

appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The solitary issue raised before us, is that under the facts and circumstances of the case, can the Reassessment proceeding be initiated

Mahadeva Gurappa Tonashyal, Dharwad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hubli

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

ITA 1045/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hemantkumar M Shurpali, CA

Section 143(2)Section 69A

necessary verification upheld the addition made in the assessment order. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue needs to be verified based on the evidences. On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. G. Tex Inc, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1129/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40

arise and accordingly, allowed the appeal of assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The solitary issue that is raised whether the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee without accepting the fact

Late Mr. Deven Jaysukhlal Shah (Thru Legal Heir- Atit Deven Shah), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 523/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Bandi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69A

proceedings have not been considered while disposing the appeal. 4. We note that there is delay of 200 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. From the facts narrated in the affidavit

System A D Solution India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1337/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Baburao Karpe

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

challenging the above levy of penalty which was dismissed vide order dated 28/02/2024. 4.4. Now the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material record. 5.1. It was contended by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Andheri West

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 1152/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: us. The Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Revenue had filed the appeal electronically and thereafter, furnished appeals in physical form. Two separate appeal numbers, being ITA No. 1152/Mum/2024 and ITA No. 1153/Mum/2024, were inadvertently allotted by the Registry for the same appeal. It was submitted that ITA No. 1152/Mum/2024 listed before us be treated as a duplicate appeal and be dismissed as withdrawn. The Learned Authorized Representative did not have any objecti

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 147

validity of the reassessment proceedings. 7. Being aggrieved by the partial relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 5 above, while the Assessee has preferred cross objections reproduced in paragraph 5.1 above. Since ... contractors to 15% of the payments and deleted the aforesaid addition in respect of commission for accommodation entries. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal while the Assessee has filed cross-objections. 13. During the course of hearing both the sides agreed that grounds raised in appeal

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4839/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

views of the Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed the penalty so imposed. He, thus dismissed appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, Ld. Counsel strongly submitted that there is no recording of any satisfaction by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the body

Shri Rishikul Brahmacharya Ashram, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 4802/MUM/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: N.A Shri Rishikul Brahmacharya Commissioner Of Income Tax Ashram, (Exemptions), Mumbai Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Tanna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 12A

assessee. Accordingly, application for grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Act was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2023. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book containing 26 pages to justify and corroborate the submissions 3 Shri

Real Touch Multitrading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai

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

ITA 4414/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

part of assessee. In absence of any written submission from the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly submitted that assessee had filed a paper book and attended hearing

Morarjee Textiles Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 4112/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which has been dismissed off as noted above. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, even though none appeared to represent the assessee, we have taken up the two appeals for adjudication, ex parte

Morarjee Textiles Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 4111/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Blackline Systems, Inc., California, United States vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3798/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

going technical support and on-demand professional support satisfies the criteria technical support and hence FIS. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 16 Blackline Systems Inc. 11. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken before the ld. DRP and the ld. DR supported the directions

Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust, Surendranagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 953/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.952/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.953/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year : - Shri Kunpara Kadva Patidar The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Seva Trust Vs Ahmedabad R Samaj Seca Trust, Chaman Ramjibhai Patel Navalgadh, Dhrangadhra, Surendranagar – 363 320 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaxts 9852 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee-Trust Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmadabad [Hereinafter Referred As “The Ld.Cit(E)”], Dated 19-02-2024 & 07-03-2024, Wherein The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab & 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Were Rejected.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Grounds of appeal relating to ITA No.952/Ahd/2024: 4. The assessee-trust has explained the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the trust is located at very remote location and the trustees are not very conversant with the e-filing and portal