“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

Sumunum Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1535/CHNY/2023[-]Status: PendingITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Smt. S. SreeFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

assessee’s application filed on 07.03.2023 in Form No.10AB u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act as not-maintainable. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the case law of M/s. Shri Ramajayam Charitable Trust vs. ITO in ITA No.1136/CHNY/2023, wherein

Prasanth Jain Vijayakumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1126/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1126/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prasanth Jain Vijayakumar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 10/4, Kasi Chetty Lane, Sowcarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 079. Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaqpp7650M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, Dated 28.07.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Admitting An Income Of ₹.4,88,690/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Conducted At The Residential/Business Premises In The Case Of M/S. Golden Shelters Private

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 69A

assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under section 69A of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the entire cash seized from the premises of the assessee does not belong

ITO, Ncw10(6), Chennai vs. M/S.Gemini Film Circuit, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 794/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.794/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Gemini Film Circuit, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6), No.28, New Bangaru Colony, Chennai. West K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Aaffg 4152 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit : Assessee By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 : घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2024

For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 154Section 194JSection 4Section 40Section 40A(3)

additions made by the AO towards remake rights of film u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The ITAT, vide their order dated 21.12.2022 remitted the issue back to the file of the AO to verify whether the expenditure laid

M/S. Smb Constructions, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 46/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms.Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.V.Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 194ISection 234A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm 4 M/s.SMB Constructions. deriving income from house property being rent received from

Bharat Vanmalibhai Modiya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Vanmalibhai Modiya, Income Tax Officer 25(2)(2), 503, Shree Krishna Bhuvan, Kautilya Bhavan, Dgit Vs. Dixit Road, Vile Parle (E), (Vigilance) (West) Avenue 3, Mumbai-400057. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aawpm 1067 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 148

reassessment proceedings u/147 of the Act. justified the reassessment proceedings u/147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way in appeal before the Tribunal by way of grounds raised as reproduced above. as reproduced above. 4. We have heard rival

Meera Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8644/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

Rs.20 Lakh under Section 68 of the Act and Rs.5 Lakh under Section 69 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal to assail the action of CIT(A). 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel submitted at the outset that

Haripur Kraft Co, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo

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

ITA 162/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 270ASection 36Section 80I

limitation for filing the appeal had already expired. 3.3 It was submitted that the assessee thereafter took necessary steps and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. It was accordingly submitted that the delay so happened in filing the present appeal was totally unintentional and beyond the control

Thalapakatty Hotels Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 331/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms.N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

uphold the assessment order. Hence the grounds raised by the appellant on this issue are rejected and accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated

Rrp Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms.N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

that the AO was justified in making the addition of Rs.69,42,000/- and the same is confirmed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended

Manohar Prasad Akkineni, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1216/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 36

none of the persons are into the film production or financing, the disallowance was confirmed by CIT(A). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copy of Tribunal order in assessee’s own case in ITA No.1891 & 1892/CHNY/2018, wherein Tribunal

Dr. Sanjay R Magavi, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 53/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.V.Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved from the above order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR of the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) issued various notice, but it was not served on the assessee

M/S. Korada Furniture Company Pvt Ltd., Hubli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1) &Tps, Hubli

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

ITA 47/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sandeep Kumar H.S., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the penalty notice issued is vague as it does not strike down relevant portion of the notice

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1034/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Inder Paul Bansal & Sri.Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Sri.Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 250

additions back into the income of the assessee.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets paper book. One set of paper book comprising of 101 pages and the other set of paper

International Education & Research Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Int-Taxa-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

ITA 183/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed by order dated 28/06/2019 passed by Dy. Commissioner (Appeals)-13. 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 27/08/2019. 3. a) The Assessee company was waiting for the order copy of the Dy. Commissioner of (Appeal

International Education & Research Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Int-Taxa-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

ITA 182/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

L & T Finance Limited [Successor of L & T Fincorp Limited, Now Merged], Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 679/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 L&T Finance Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of (Successor Of L&T Fincorp Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Limited, Now Merged) Vs. Kolkata 15Th Floor, Ps Srijan Tech Park, Plot No. 52, Block Dn, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prasant Jaiswal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

which was disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2016 whereby the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Department went in appeal before the Tribunal against this appellate order which was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2022. 3.3. From the above facts, it is worth-noting that the appeal relating to the first

Sansar Trading (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 544/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Kesari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, JCIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

share capital as genuine transaction based on the directions given by him. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and not legally correct in giving direction

Aim Credit Capital Pvt Ltd, Paschim Midnapore vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Aim Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Room No. 3, Purnima Complex 4(3), Kolkata. Vill-Maheshwaripur, Ps Salboni, Vs. P.O. Syedpur, Paschim Midnapore, West Bengal-721147. (Pan: Aacca2464R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, JCIT

Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250

dismissed." 3.2. The first appeal by the assessee was thus, dismissed and the addition so made was confirmed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Present appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 325 days as stated above which has been condoned. Before us, Ld. Counsel

Madurai Agri Business Incubation Forum, Coimbatore vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 875/CHNY/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

assessee’s application filed on 17.03.2023 in Form No.10AB u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act as not-maintainable. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.827, 875 & 1136/Chny/2023 5. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA argued and admitted the facts

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT-Corp Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

made on this account amounting Rs. 1,02,66,292/- is accordingly sustained. This Ground of appeal is dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has recorded