← 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

Dhaval Dhushant Vora, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3013/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 69

well as on merits. The CIT(A) dismissed both the grounds of the assessee and confirmed the addition. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record

Sunil Dagadu Mhaskar, Panvel vs. Income Tax Department, Thane

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

ITA 2846/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

Dagadu Mhaskar assessee under section 69A of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It may also be noted that the Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs.16.50 lakhs towards the cash balance found with

Om Ganpati Marketing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

deposits by the assessee. The CIT(A) thus declined to interfere with the order of the AO. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of trading

Addl.CIT, Range-03, New Delhi vs. Dayco Power Transmission P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7270/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Aggarwal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92E

year. The contention of the appellant is accordingly disposed off.” 5. Aggrieved by the exclusion of two comparables named above, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal as per Grounds No.1 and 2 of the appeal. I.T.A. No.7270/Del/2018 5 6. At the time of hearing

DCIT, Central Circle- II, Noida vs. Newtramax Healthcare, Kurukshetra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7159/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 80I

appeal of the appellant are allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the reversal of additions made by the AO, the I.T.A. No.7159/Del/2018 3 Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1549/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. AR & Sh. ParimalsinhFor Respondent: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

pointed out by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in such circumstances, we find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in setting aside the deletion as the Assessing Officer, without taking step for verification of the Income Tax Return of the creditors ... Sureshchandra Shantilal Bramhbhatt 4. Aggrieved by the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), Revenue has now come in appeal before the Tribunal . The ld. DR drew our attention to the assessment order and submitted that AO has rightly made the additions. The ld. DR submitted that

Sri Vishal Kumar Bhuwania, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Cir. 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 103/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 103/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Sri Vishal Kumar Bhuwania,………....…...….Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Adopb0280C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,… Respondent Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 03, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Date of pronouncing the order: April 03, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 dated 18.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 1 Sri Vishal Kumar

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 965/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80l

made for which assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also sustained the said disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the detailed submissions made before the authorities below. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee ... wherein no such disallowance has been made by the AO. Further, in the subsequent year i.e. AY 2014-15 which is also in appeal before the Tribunal, no such disallowance has been made. Accordingly, the disallowance so made in the impugned assessment is ought to be allowed

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata-12(1), Kol., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 964/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80l

made for which assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also sustained the said disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the detailed submissions made before the authorities below. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee ... wherein no such disallowance has been made by the AO. Further, in the subsequent year i.e. AY 2014-15 which is also in appeal before the Tribunal, no such disallowance has been made. Accordingly, the disallowance so made in the impugned assessment is ought to be allowed

Steel House, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1464/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1464/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Steel House, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 11, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 19(4), Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Chennai. [Pan:Aabfs0085L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 19.10.2023 Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1057223180(1) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Disposing Of The Appeal Ex Parte Without Considering The Facts Of The Case & The Submissions Made In The Proper Perspective. 2. Merits

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 68Section 69Section 69A

appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved against the exparte appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted neither the ld. CIT(A) has considered the detailed facts filed along with grounds

Rare Townships Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6 (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3847/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 199Section 43B

year under consideration and therefore, not allowable as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us the assessee raised an additional ground contending the action of the AO in not allowing the credit for TDS claimed

M/S Mahadeo Shahra & S0Ns, Mubai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2913/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Vikas Awasthy (Jm)

Section 131Section 68

assessed the same under section 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the addition and hence the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 M/s. Mahadeo Shahra & Sons 5. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee had initially furnished the annual report of M/s Teej Impex

Balaji Buillion & Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. N.M. Porwal
Section 234BSection 68

order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of rais appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds and additional ing grounds and additional ground as reproduced above

Warm Forgings P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 1148/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1148/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Warm Forgings P. Ltd., Dcit Plot No.117 & 118, A-3, Vs. Circle 27(1), Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabcc7684C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal." I.T.A.No.1148/Del/2019 11. On the afore-stated facts, the coordinate bench held as under: "5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S. Rsd Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd., 2015-16 vs. DCIT, Cir-9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 794/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 794/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Rsd Natural Resources Private Ltd.,.….Appellant C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aagcr3203B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…….Respondent Circle-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Room No. 5/25, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 2Nd, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

Date of pronouncing the order: April 2nd, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3 dated 31st May, 2023 passed

M/S Manmohak Infrastrucdture Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1384/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 144(1)Section 68

Date of pronouncing the order: April 2, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National 1 M/s. Manmohak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated ... applicants, their source of money or anything else. In response to four notices, no one has appeared before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The appeal before the Tribunal has made time barred by 24 days. No one has appeared before the Tribunal nor any paper book has been filed, wherein details

Maheswari Mining & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar&For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32A

accordingly upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned AM while upholding the order of the learned CIT (A) was of the opinion that in the gazette notification published

Friends of Kolkata, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 105/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024

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

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Date of pronouncing the order: April 01, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata 1 Friends of Kolkata dated 22.11.2023, vide which application of the assessee

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 751/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the findings arrived at by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above narrated facts and corroborated the same with the documents placed

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 750/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the findings arrived at by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above narrated facts and corroborated the same with the documents placed