← 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

K. P. Nanjundi Vishwakarma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 427/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty orders. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 30 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, that the appeals were duly filed by his representative. However ... follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

K. P. Nanjundi Vishwakarma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 426/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty orders. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 30 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, that the appeals were duly filed by his representative. However ... follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

K. P. Nanjundi Vishwakarma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

ITA 425/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty orders. Page 15 of 30 ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, that the appeals were duly filed by his representative. However ... follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

K. P. Nanjundi Vishwakarma, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 424/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty orders. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 30 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, that the appeals were duly filed by his representative. However ... follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

K. P. Nanjundi Vishwakarma, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

ITA 423/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty orders. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 30 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, that the appeals were duly filed by his representative. However

K. P. Nanjundi Vishwakarma, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 422/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty orders. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 30 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, that the appeals were duly filed by his representative. However ... follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

K. P. Nanjundi Vishwakarma, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 421/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty orders. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 30 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, that the appeals were duly filed by his representative. However ... follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

K. P. Nanjundi Vishwakarma, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 420/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty orders. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 30 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was under a bonafide belief, that the appeals were duly filed by his representative. However ... follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

M/S. S J S Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 327/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

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

Yojaka India Pvt Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) and Tps, Mangaluru

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

ITA 924/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Shamala, D.D., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji (supra), delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the AO completed assessment

Surbhit Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 78/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

without 3 Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd., AY 2015-16 adjudicating on the grounds dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book containing 91 pages to substantiate that all the necessary

Income Tax Officer-10(2)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Jogeshwari

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 642/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer-10(2)(3) V. Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 142/48, Ghaswala Estate Room No-212, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Jogeshwari(W) M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aalpg9087A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri S.M. Makhija & : Ms. Manisha Ghind Department Represented By : Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 148Section 45Section 45(3)Section 48

case of Co-owner Abdulsattar Suleman Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala Ghaswala, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition, the revenue preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench and the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1658/MUM/2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14 held that according to provisions of section ... well reasoned order, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred the appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal firstly considered the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. After elaborately considering the facts the tribunal

Kishore Ghevarchand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 278/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Kishor Ghevarchand Jain Circle -1, Kalyan D.C.I.T. 3Rd Floor, 1St Floor, Porwal Bhawan, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Near Vaishya Mandir Hall, Wayale Nagar, Kasarhat, Kalyan Khadak Pada, Thane - 421301. Kalyan (W.) - 421301. Pan: Aazpj6248E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The „Act‟ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057548827(1) Dated 31/10/2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Following Ground Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69Section 69C

produce any submission, evidence or documents to substantiate his claim that the entire transactions were genuine one. 9. The appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT Appeal. During the course of hearing before us, the appellant admitted that no compliance

Ishares Msci Bric Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Bric Index Mauritius Co (Liquidated)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4599/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270A

Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP who confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason

Ishares Msci Em Asia Ucits Etf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4566/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270A

Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP who confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason

Ishares Core Msci Em Imi Ucits Etf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4565/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270A

Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP who confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason

Ishares Emerging Markets Imi Equity Index Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4563/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270A

Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP who confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason

Ishares Dege Msci Em Minimum Volatility Ucits, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International of Income Tax (Int Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4562/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 270A

Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP who confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason

India Acorn Fund Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri MADHUR Agarwal / FenilFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 234C

Fund Ltd. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP who confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that ... First Appellate Authority accepted Assessee's method of computation and reversed the findings of Assessing Officer. The Department carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench dismissed the appeal of Revenue holding as under: India Acron Fund Ltd. "13. We have considered his submissions

Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1) Mumbai, Income Tax vs. Alisha Girish Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, instant appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3579/MUM/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. D.R
Section 250

lakhs, therefore, considering the fact that tax effect involved in the instant case is less than the monetary limit fixed for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, this appeal is not maintainable. 3. In the result, instant appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced