← 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

M/S. Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/BANG/2023[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 1996-97 M/S. Canara Bank, Vs. Dcit, Fm Wing, Head Office, 112, J C Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 002. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250

vide the impugned order dated 11.10.2023. 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed two sets of Paper Books enclosing therein Page 4 of 9 the details of leasing of the assets, orders

Avinash Kumar Ojha, Thane vs. ITO 2(1), Thane

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

ITA 3552/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 40A(3)

made under Section 40A(3) of the Act fully. Aggrieved by the additions confirmed by Ld CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. With regard to disallowance of Commission expenses, we noticed that an aggregate amount of Rs.16,50,000/- was claimed to have been

Progressive Alloys(India) Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3882/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Deepanshu Singla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Assessing Officer. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 01.01.2024. The assessee has failed to appear on several occasions before the ld. CIT(A) and has taken up the Progressive Alloys (India

Smt. Surinder Kaur Thapar (Legal Heir of Late Shri Amrit Singh Thapar), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2103/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11 Smt. Surinder Kaur Thapar Vs. Dcit, (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Amrit Circle-2(1), Singh Thapar) New Delhi. R-612, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi – 110 060 Pan Aaapt0790Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234CSection 68Section 69Section 69C

impugned additions for non- compliance of notice(s) of hearing issued to the assessee by him. 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the records. The assessee

ACIT, Circle CC 15, New Delhi vs. Alka Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

crores. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 13. During the hearing, the ld. DR reiterated the rationale of the Assessing Officer while treating the difference of amount of Rs.40.06 Cr. and Rs.16

ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Yash Pal Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

crores. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 13. During the hearing, the ld. DR reiterated the rationale of the Assessing Officer while treating the difference of amount of Rs.40.06 Cr. and Rs.16

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Sh. Hemant Kumar, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3458/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 68

capital from Smt. Vandana and Rs.6,00,000/- on account of household withdrawals. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee as well as Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that in absence of any correlation between the withdrawals and the deposits, the decision

M/S Singh Construction Co., Patiala vs. ACIT, Circle, Patial

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1120/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipen Sethi, Advocate and Shri Shashi Bhushan Galav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 68

view of the order passed passed by the ld CIT, Patiala under Section 263 of the Act. 8. The assessee thereafter moved in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 366/Chd/2014 against the order of the Ld. CIT, Patiala dt. 10/03/2014 passed under section 263 of the Act. Separately, another ... made by the AO were confirmed. 11. Against the said findings, it is noted that both the Revenue and the assessee moved in appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue moved in appeal against the action of the ld CIT(A) in applying rate of net profit of 5.74% as against

Ashwini Sahakari Rungnalaya & Research Center, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 2.4 The assessee society impugned the aforestated rejection u/s 253(1)(c) of the Act in an appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal vide its order 15/03/2007 directed the registering authority to grant 12A registration on deeming fiction for Revenue

Fastner Commodeal Private Limited, Siliguri vs. ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1010/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

citing the circular issued by CBDT. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 A.Y. 2020-21 Fastner Commodeal Private Limited 6. We have heard the submission of both the parties. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that while filing

N. Gunasekar, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 1141/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1141/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri N. Gunasekar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 196-C, Anna Nagar, Shyamala Income Tax, Nivas, Kannankurichi, No. 3, Gandhi Circle 1(1), Road, Salem 636 008. Salem. [Pan:Ajopg3410B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, 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 : 07.03.2024 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 27.07.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 16 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Detailed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit. By Referring To The Above Condonation Petition, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AR of the assessee had appeared before the ld. CIT(A) on 20.02.2023 and filed detailed

Uma Maheshwar Rao Vendavelli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 34/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

u/s.154 of the Act, warranting interference by him. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing therein copy of the ITR, computation of income for the relevant assessment year, copy

Shri Vijay Suresh Dave, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2842/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 68

view of the above discussions the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 4. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that out of the loans borrowed, loan amount to the tune of Rs.56

Surender Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2016-17 and AY

ITA 1315/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri P. Ray Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

under section 69A of the Act and not under section 69C as done by the Ld. AO. 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in both the AYs and common grounds relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not enter into any cash

Surender Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2016-17 and AY

ITA 1314/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri P. Ray Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

under section 69A of the Act and not under section 69C as done by the Ld. AO. 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in both the AYs and common grounds relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not enter into any cash

Jawaharlal Baburam Sharma, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1179/PUN/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Manoj PalFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 4. Delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having

Britannia Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

Date of pronouncing the order :March 06, 2024 O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-1dated 29.03.2023 passed u/s 263 of the Act, which is arising

Rising Tradecom Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1265/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Rising Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4Th Floor, 23B N. S. Road, Vs. 4(1), Kolkata. Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aaecr4178B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 144

confirmed the addition by holding that the difference in value of opening stock with closing stock remained unexplained. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no 3. mistake for amounts appearing in closing stock of the last year as opening

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1161/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2011-12 Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata- Vs. 3(3), Kolkata. 700069. (Pan: Aaecs5627C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

shell company having no business and creditworthiness for purchasing the share of the appellant company for Rs.50,00,000/-.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO for invoking the reopening

Abdul Samad, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 661/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.661/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Samad, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 35, Chicken Market, Amman Koil Income Tax, Street, Broadway, Chennai 600 001. Central Circle 1(1), [Pan:Advpa3535G] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 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)-16, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income On 29.09.2009 Admitting Income At ₹.3,60,990/-. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. S.S. Hyderabad Biryani Pvt. Ltd., Old No. 35, 1St Floor, Amman Koil Street, Near Chicken

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

sales of ₹.92,15,673/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. counsel for the 3 I.T.A. No.661/Chny/23 assessee has submitted that in the grounds ... petition under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 filed by the assessee and also raising legal issue in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, to meet the ends of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee shall raise the legal issue before