← 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

Indian Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 305/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 131Section 69A

ground of appeal 4 is allowed for statistical purpose.” 6. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee society when applied for PAN in Form 49A wrongly classified the status because

DCIT, Income Tax Mumbai vs. Peacemoon Traders, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3771/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147

suspicious, bogus purchases instead of disallowing 100%. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had come in appeal before the Tribunal against applying of GP rate of 12.5%, wherein the Tribunal has restricted the addition to 5%. Thus, once, the Tribunal itself has upheld the GP rate

DCIT, Income Tax Mumbai vs. Peacemoon Traders, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3765/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147

suspicious, bogus purchases instead of disallowing 100%. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had come in appeal before the Tribunal against applying of GP rate of 12.5%, wherein the Tribunal has restricted the addition to 5%. Thus, once, the Tribunal itself has upheld the GP rate

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Jsw Jaigarh Port Limited, Bandra(East)

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3345/MUM/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-5(2)(1), Jsw Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5Th Floor, R.N. 571, 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, DR

deleted both the additions. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Jaigarh Port Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3342/MUM/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-5(2)(1), Jsw Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5Th Floor, R.N. 571, 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, DR

deleted both the additions. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai vs. Jasvantlal Girdharlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 36(2)

below the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/- prescribed by the Circular No prescribed by the Circular No. 3/2018 3/2018 for filing appeal before the Tribunal. appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also could The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also could The Ld. Departmental Representative

Khaleeque Ahmad Nayyar, Lucknow vs. CPC, Banglore, Lucknow

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

ITA 104/LKW/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2020-21 Khaleeque Ahmad Nayvar, Vs. Cpc, Flat No. 202, Fortune View Banglore Apartment, 301/4 Sector-9, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow. Pan Afapn 1234Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Present For The Assessee Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 90

facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. 6. It is seen that the present appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly and that there is a delay of 133 days in filing of the appeal. As per the application for condonation ... First Appellate Authority had already disposed of his appeal on 12.08.2023 and thereafter, he immediately asked his lawyer to prepare and file the appeal before the Tribunal. It has been 4 submitted that there is no mala-fide intention in not filing the present appeal on or before

Gorur Infra Projects Private Limited, Raigad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pnvel Circle, Panvel

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

ITA 163/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 251Section 80I

furnish any reason for the delay in filing this appeal.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay, according to which, Mr. Mohankumar

Built Up, Pune vs. ITO, Ward3(1), Pune

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

ITA 121/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 80I

anything to prove his claim and was therefore guilty of negligence. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed a copy of the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case

M/S Om Namah Shivay Trading Company, Paraola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 511/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

apparently sought to be done by the appellant.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.1

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Pune, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Akurdi vs. Rising Enterprise, Pune

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

ITA 1425/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-9(1), Vs. Rising Enterprise, Pune Survey No.44, Near Bsnl Telephone Exchange, Next To Bank Of India, Dehu Road – 412 101 Maharashtra Pan : Aaxfr0053K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 68

High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of 5. the appellant despite due service of notice

Skybridge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, (Tp)-2 Hyderbad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 154Section 253(1)(d)Section 270A

direction issued by the DRP. 8. Section 253(1)(d) of the Act clearly postulates right of the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal in case, the AO passes any order in pursuant to the directions of the DRP. In the present case, the order passed ... appeal cannot be expanded by the judicial interpretation or by inference. In the present case, clearly, the order impugned before us is not appealable for the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee does not lie before the Tribunal and therefore, the same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly

Shree Anjani Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

granting relief to the assessee of Rs. 2,37,38,918/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue went into appeal before the Tribunal and assessee also filed cross-objection regarding the issue of partial addition made by ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order ... leviable on the concealed income as determined by the Tribunal in the case of assessee. 6. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. AR stated that at the time of passing of penalty order, assessee could not furnish to response due to non- functioning

Takdah Lingding Gpskus Ltd., Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Darjeeling

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

ITA 211/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. Now, the only question for a determination is that whether condonation petition of the assessee reveals sufficient cause for delay. 5. In this context

Sri Gayatri Credit Co-Op Society Limited, Tiptur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

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

ITA 320/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit S. Bapu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 69A

Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 122 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee. In the application for condonation of delay and affidavit, it is stated that the principal officer looking after Page ... case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, delay of 122 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. The sole and substantive issue raised by the assessee is cash deposits during the demonetisation period i.e., on 10.11.2016 of Rs.3 lakhs

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1060/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter to the file of the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) passed two orders, both ... Sales Society vs. ACIT reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611. 3.4 Aggrieved by all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay in filing present appeals before this Tribunal. The details of delay

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1059/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter to the file of the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) passed two orders, both ... Sales Society vs. ACIT reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611. 3.4 Aggrieved by all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay in filing present appeals before this Tribunal. The details of delay

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 1058/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) Page 5 of 48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter to the file of the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) passed two orders, both ... Sales Society vs. ACIT reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611. 3.4 Aggrieved by all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay in filing present appeals before this Tribunal. The details of delay

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1057/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter to the file of the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) passed two orders, both ... Sales Society vs. ACIT reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611. 3.4 Aggrieved by all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay in filing present appeals before this Tribunal. The details of delay

The Karnataka State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1056/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 2Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

order was passed on 26.02.2016. In first appeal, an order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.02.2017, against which the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal who passed order dated 06.04.2018 remanding the matter to the file of the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld.CIT(A) passed two orders, both ... Sales Society vs. ACIT reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611. 3.4 Aggrieved by all the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay in filing present appeals before this Tribunal. The details of delay