“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

Mr. Palanisamy Senthilkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 1601/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1601/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2018-2019 Shri. Palanisamy Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, 73/1, Selvakumar Rice Mill, Vs. Ward 2(1) Mangalam Road, Tirupur 641 601. Andipalayam, Tirupur 641 687. [Pan: Bwups 6975B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. J. Vamini, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2024. घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054384098 (1) Dated 15.07.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2 Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Vide Order Dated 03.04.2021. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regard To Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income (Appeals) (In Short ‘’Ld. Cit(A)’’) Sustaining/ Restricting The Addition At Rs.73,99,559/- As Against Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer At Rs.2,42,58,153/- In Regard To Disallowance Of Expenditure Being Payment Of Commission & Brokerage Made To Contractors U/S.69C Of The Act Being Unexplained Expenditure.

For Appellant: Ms. J. Vamini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 44BSection 68Section 69C

incurred by the Appellant and certified by the tax auditor in his report under section 44B of the Act’’. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

completely absent in the instant case. Therefore, we also find the imposition of penalty to be unjustified. 31. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) that the assessee raised a new stand before the CIT(A). No such new stand ... reply dated 15.3.2016 in response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which explanation he maintained till he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, on facts, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan is distinguishable. 36. Further

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 28/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated that assessee had filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the return of income and same

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Stonex India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

such Ground no. 3 is allowed.” 7. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A) on both counts, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 8. While the ld. DR for the Revenue has relied upon the assessment order, the ld. counsel for the assessee has strongly defended

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchasing the share of the assessee is justified.” Similar observation and conclusion was drawn for AY 2012-13. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. AYs 2010 -11 & 2012-13 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that the reasons to believe recorded

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Jiangdong Fittings Equipments Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 349/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediajiangdong Fittings Vs. Acit Equipments Co. Ltd. Circle Int. Tax – 2(1)(2) C/O. Unit No.309 B, C, D, 3Rd New Delhi Floor, Magnum Tower I, Sector-58, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 011 Pan No. Aadcj 6890 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kamal Sawhney, Shri Arun Bhadoriya & Shri Puru Medheria, Advs. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.03.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 4

Rs.2,18,480/-. 5. Aggrieved, by the aforesaid action of the AO as per the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset, that addition of Rs.6

Sri Govinddeo Educational Institute, Kolkata vs. Dy.DIT(E)-1, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Govinddeo Educational Ddit, Exemption Circle-1, Institute Kolkata Vs. 78, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. (Pan: Aabts6053J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

iiiad). Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the said disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset pointed that on identical set of facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata

Vineet Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being

ITA 1003/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:- 1. We first take ITA No. 1002/KOL/2023 for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.07.2023, which is arising out of the order A.Ys ... partly allowed. 11. Now we take ITA No. 1003/KOL/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. 12. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.08.2023, which is arising out of the order dated 03.12.2018 under

Vineet Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being

ITA 1002/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Upinder Kaur Khalsa Rao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3670/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: 27.02.2024

Section 148Section 2(24)

flats also. In view of the above fact and discussion, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed.” 4. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the AO and the CIT(A) have not denied the fact that the amount

M/S. Flexsin Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3003/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shyam M. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

made to suppress the profit. Accordingly the addition of Rs.42,90,805/- made by the AO is upheld.” 7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6 Flexsin Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The issues

Aczet Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3706/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Section 143(3)Section 14A

upheld the disallowance in respect of commission expenses and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3019/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. in appeal before the Tribunal. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Directi ITA Nos. 3019 & 3018/M/2023 5. The grounds raised by the assessee

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3018/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

DCIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2684/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Sareen, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 44

additions. Tribunal’) in preceding assessment year deleted the additions. Tribunal’) in preceding assessment year deleted the additions. 3. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival

Gopalkrishna Pandu Shetty, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 32(1), Mumbai, Mahrashtra

ITA 2471/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

Pradesh High Court in Mir Gulam Ali Khan v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 228/[1986] 28 Taxman 572. 6. The revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal questioning the decision of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal, however, by the impugned order, agreed with the decision of the CIT (Appeals

Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Thane

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7344/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.7344/मुं/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Lanxess India Private Limited, Lanxess House, Plot No.A/162-164, Road No.27, Wagle Estate, Opp.Iti College, Midc, Thane (West) – 400 604 Pan: Aaccb-3880-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1,Thane, Room No.22, 6Th Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Ambika Nagar, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Estate, Thane (West)- 400 064 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna With Ms.Hirali Desai & Ms.Riddhi Maru "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Following Grounds Assailing The Assessment Order:

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna with Ms.Hirali Desai & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr.A.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156Section 244A

making the adjustment under manufacturing segments are identical to Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA NO.971/Mum/2015. The Tribunal vide order dated 06/12/2022 held that TNMM is the most appropriate method for benchmarking transaction of export of finished goods. The ld.Authorized ... further submitted that similar adjustment was made in respect of manufacturing segment in Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.7220/Mum/2017. The Tribunal following earlier order for Assessment Year 2010-11 held that CUP is not the most appropriate method