← 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

Shri Gayatri Sanshodhan Seva Mandal, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, CIT Exemption Pune

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

ITA 1361/PUN/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

trust but also cancelled the registration granted to the trust on 24.09.2021 u/s 12AB of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that the Charity Commissioner has granted permission to modification/change in the objects of the trust

Shri Baburao Rambhau Kapte, Chandrapur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur Range, Chandrapur

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

ITA 39/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

hearing, the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation which is delayed by 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the event of such delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which read ... opinion that the assessee is prevented by filing the present appeal belatedly and the delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned. We now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 5. The only issue arose for our adjudication is, whether

Ifb Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 212/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ifb Automotive Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Plot No. Ind-V, Sector-1 Vs Tax, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata East Kolkata Township Kasba Industrial Estate Kolkata - 700107 [Pan : Aabci2766H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 12/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(L), Kolkata (Assessing Officer) On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 41,61,190/- Ignoring The Provisions Under Section 50 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance & Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50

Hence, the addition made by the AO is sustained and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book containing 103 pages, firstly took us through the fact sheet

Ayisha Firdose, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 753/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2021-22 Smt. Ayisha Firdose, Vs. Ito, No.208, 1St Floor, 1St Main Road, Ward – 5(3)(1), Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Akxpa 8709 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

days and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book comprising of 225 pages enclosing therein the submissions made during the appellate proceedings, the application for condonation

Louis Xavier D'Costa, Goa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 749/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Louis Xavier D’Costa, Vs. Dcit, H. No.86B C/O Inacio D’Costa, Circle – 3(3)(1), Belloi Nuvem, Bengaluru. Salcette – 403 601, Goa. Pan : Akgpd 2147 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balaji, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 91

Assessment Year viz., 2017-18. Page 3 of 5 6. Aggrieved by the Order of Addl. / JCIT(A), asssessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein case laws relied on, copy of Form 67 filed for the relevant Assessment Year, submissions

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 704/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has not shown any sufficient cause in filing the appeals belatedly before NFAC and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Against this, assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal in all these cases. 3. The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeals ... Karn.), held as under: “9. If the Tribunal had exercised its discretion to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner-company in its appeal before the Tribunal for condoning the delay and found there was no sufficient cause made out by the petitioner and had consequently dismissed the application seeking

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 703/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has not shown any sufficient cause in filing the appeals belatedly before NFAC and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Against this, assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal in all these cases. 3. The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeals ... Karn.), held as under: “9. If the Tribunal had exercised its discretion to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner-company in its appeal before the Tribunal for condoning the delay and found there was no sufficient cause made out by the petitioner and had consequently dismissed the application seeking

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 702/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has not shown any sufficient cause in filing the appeals belatedly before NFAC and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Against this, assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal in all these cases. 3. The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeals ... Karn.), held as under: “9. If the Tribunal had exercised its discretion to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner-company in its appeal before the Tribunal for condoning the delay and found there was no sufficient cause made out by the petitioner and had consequently dismissed the application seeking

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 701/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 147Section 20Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has not shown any sufficient cause in filing the appeals belatedly before NFAC and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Against this, assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal in all these cases. 3. The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeals

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 700/BANG/2024[2013-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 147Section 20Section 202Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has not shown any sufficient cause in filing the appeals belatedly before NFAC and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Against this, assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal in all these cases. 3. The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeals ... Karn.), held as under: “9. If the Tribunal had exercised its discretion to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner-company in its appeal before the Tribunal for condoning the delay and found there was no sufficient cause made out by the petitioner and had consequently dismissed the application seeking

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

ITA 699/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Ravishankar, A.R
Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has not shown any sufficient cause in filing the appeals belatedly before NFAC and accordingly dismissed the appeals. Against this, assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal in all these cases. 3. The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeals

Karavali Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Davanagere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 478/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowda .S. GowdarFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)
Section 250Section 58Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80p

supra) & there is no need for fresh adjudication. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the Learned CIT(A) passed the Order without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Navin Fluorine International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

ITA 9/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: 30/05/2024
Section 14A

allowed part relief to the part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 4. We have heard rival submission

Shri Amit Narhari Sanap, Nashik vs. ACIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 565/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harmesh Lal
Section 250

18/04/2023 was received by the assessee through email on the same date. It is further submitted that the due date of filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 17/07/2023. However, the same was filed on 08/02/2024. The assessee submitted that the email address on which the impugned order was sent

Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57 Income Tax Departmetnt, Mumbai

ITA 364/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 253

assessee on the same date and therefore, as per the provisions of section 253 of the Act, the time limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was available till 16/01/2023. However, the present appeal was filed by the assessee on 25/01/2024. As per the assessee, it was awaiting

Music Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 7593/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2010-11 C.O. No.88/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7277/Mum/2014,A.Y.2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish MalikFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.AR
Section 143

assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was partly allowed. Hence both the parties have filed this appeal before the Tribunal on the issues decided against each of them. The assessee has also filed cross objection. 3. We shall first take up the appeal filed

DCIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Music Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 7277/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2010-11 C.O. No.88/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7277/Mum/2014,A.Y.2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish MalikFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.AR
Section 143

assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was partly allowed. Hence both the parties have filed this appeal before the Tribunal on the issues decided against each of them. The assessee has also filed cross objection. 3. We shall first take up the appeal filed

Ashwini Finman Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - I, New Delhi

ITA 3200/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Ashwini Finman Services Vs. Pcit-1 Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 79, Agroha Kunj, Sector-13 Rohini New Delhi- 110085 Pan : Aaeca5417G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 263Section 68

erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds; “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under

Praful Raghuveer Chandawarkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 187/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

appeal while confirming the addition on account of agricultural income of Rs. 4,08,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The provisions of sub-clause

M/S Sms Infrastructure Ltd, Nagpur vs. D.C.I.T. Centralcircle 2(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 566/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattadFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Marathe
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the learned CIT(A) to decide all the grounds raised by the assessee afresh. The learned CIT(A), following ... directions of the Tribunal, by relying upon various case laws, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Once again, the assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee, he cannot