“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

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

B.V. Jewels, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

ITA 2064/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Section 41(1)Section 45(4)

Assessee by reducing the disallowance made towards legal and professional fees, foreign travel expenses and salaries. The Assessee and the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 13.5.2011 (ITA No.1433 and 2038/MUM/2009) restored the issues ... made during the first round of assessment proceedings as listed above and the CIT(A) confirmed the said additions. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal once again contending the additions made by the AO in the remand proceedings. Addition towards factory building – Ground No.1 5. Brief facts pertaining

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Cirecle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. & Shri Jimi Patel , A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

cannot be made applicable to clause (f) of Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. 6. The Revenue, therefore, went in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Vineet Investment vide ... confirm the addition of Rs.5 lakh. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed.” As rightly held by both, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, this issue has a direct correlation with the first question. It was argued by the Revenue that while computing the book profit under Section

Neerus Ensembles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 66/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Neerus Ensembles (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 16(1) Pan:Aaccn1554D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22/11/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Retail In Garments & Other Accessories. Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2019- 20 On 21.10.2019 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.6,95,37,230/-. The Cpc Sent An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Determining Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7,14,16,250/- Wherein Disallowance

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Page 2 of 5 ITA No 66 of 2023 Neerus Ensembles P Ltd 5. Grounds 1 & 8 being general

The Farmers Service Co-Op Ltd., Ranasthalam vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 310/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.310/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21) The Farmers Service Co-Op. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ranasthalam, Ward-1, Srikakulam-532407. Srikakulam. Pan: Aabtt 4377 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 98 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below ... days in filing the appeal.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within

Shreya Cancer Foundation, Visakhapatnam vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.281/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Shreya Cancer Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-70-6, Mig-109, Mvp Colony Ward-1(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaots9921J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

only to approach the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form 10B. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The under the facts and circumstances of the case the order processed under section

Kalli Narayana Appa Rao, W.G.Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 197/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.197 /Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kalli Narayana Appa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-57-1, Bavi Veedhi, Ward-2 Poola, Bhimadole Mandal Eluru West Godavari [Pan : Alppk9004Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

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

Ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

Income Tax Office, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Harinadh Ananthaneni, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Harinadh Ananthaneni, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 28/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ananthaneni Harinadh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolavenu Village, Ward-2(3), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (""यथ"/ Respondent) (Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

allowing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following Grounds of Appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the new / additional evidence ignoring the provisions of Rule

M/S. Mdr Cranes & Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 353/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.353 /Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S Mdr Cranes & Infrastructure Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Hig-1, D.No.49-58-4 Circle-3(1) Green Park Colony Visakhapatnam Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aagcm1052M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.PCIT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts

Jajodia Finance Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 614/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Date of pronouncing the order : February 29, 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. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-3dated 24.04.2023, which is arising out of the order under section

Gkw Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir1(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 404/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 43B

explained why the said liability has become ascertained during the previous year.” 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal stating that regarding provision for lease rent that assessee was a tenant of a building since 40 years with a monthly rent

Sri. Mathai Joseph Thomas, Munnar vs. ACIT Circle 1, Aluva

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 907/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

filed on 26.09.2022, are with a delay of 10 days, unaccompanied by any condonation petition. That apart, Form 36, i.e., the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, is neither signed nor dated nor verified. These defects were communicated to the assessee vide defect memo dated 01.10.2022. Further, there being

Sri Mathai Joseph Thomas, Munnar vs. ITO Ward 2, Thodupuzha

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 906/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1104/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No.234, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Appellant Respondent C.O.No.5/Bang/2024 (In Ita No.1104/Bang/2023) Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 095. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Akta Jain B, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) By The Assessee Arise Out Of Cit(A)’S Order Dated 27.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. C.O. No.5/Bang/2024 Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Akta Jain B, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

reporting of income. C.O. No.5/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has also filed CO. 6. We have heard the learned DR and learned AR. We find that as against the quantum assessment

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3745/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

have been passed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) on 21st September 2022 and as such the due date to file the appeal before the Tribunal was November 20th, 2022; that at the time of filing form No.35 in the column “whether notice/communication be sent on e-mail

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3744/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

Lalit Ratanchand Jagawat, Mumbai vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-23(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3709/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

dismissed by the CIT(A). 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of dismissal of appeal, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the 6. Appellant, at the outset, submitted that the appeal preferred

Mohd Shahid Mohd Yusuf Qureshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2788/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 132Section 144Section 250

Ld.Commissioner ultimately affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved, is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset we observe that in the instant case, the assessment proceedings have been carried out during the Covid-2019 period

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 1243/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234CSection 250Section 80G

also observed that the proof furnished by the Assessee were not verifiable. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the donations made by the Assessee and claimed as deduction under Section 80G of the Act were ... dividend recipient. However, the aforesaid claim of the Assessee was rejected by the CIT(A). Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record including the judicial precedents cited during the course

Appdynamics International Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Intl Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2413/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

relief claimed on account of non taxability of receipts from various customers including Bharti Airtel towards sale of software, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out at the outset that the assessee has reported receipts from various customers on sale