← 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

Varsha Ratan Bhalwankar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3645/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

cash deposited by the assessee during demonetization period but gave relief with respect to the income from landscaping business. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments only with respect

Smt. Pinki Chetan Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3629/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare, DR
Section 2Section 56(2)(x)

income to this extent.” 4. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the said addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made for the reason that

Marvel Drugs Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3626/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

learned CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. It is an admitted position that in the quantum appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee did not press its ground challenging the aforesaid addition. During the hearing, no material was brought on record to controvert the findings ... admitted position that the 8 M/s. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ltd. assessee did not raise any ground against the aforesaid addition in its quantum appeal before the Tribunal. During the hearing, no material was brought on record to prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose

Jitesh Jitendra Sakhidas, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30 (1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3112/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

appearance nor filed any additional details before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The ld. AR submitted that the entire addition is made on the basis

Urmil Sharma, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 67(4), Delhi

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

ITA 3210/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Baldev Raj, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed." 12. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 13. From the above, we find that the total cash deposits were to the tune of Rs.15,73,000/- out of which the amount

Maharashtra Seamless Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7065/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

order of the AO, assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A), who directed to consider LIBOR +350 points, resulting in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. With regard to the tenure of loan granted

Nimmagadda Sridevi, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income, Circle - 3(2), Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

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

ITA 4/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 4/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nimmagadda Sridevi, Deputy Commissioner Of Secunderabad Vs. Income Tax, [Pan: Actpn4924B] Circle-3(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध / Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध / Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

marriage and ill health of his elder brother, could not attend his office properly, which caused four days delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, learned AR filed an affidavit. He further submits that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the first appeal

Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata. C/O, P. K. Himatsinghka & Co. 41, B. B. Ganguly Vs. Street, Central Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. (Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Himatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 250Section 68

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before this Tribunal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 issued on 01.04.2021 is barred by limitation, the notice therefore ... wherein the assessee raised various grounds. However, appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds of appeal. However, the first two grounds in the instant appeal are on the issue of law point by which the assessee

Pukhraj Nathmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2815/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare
Section 68Section 69A

Aggrieved, the Assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who upheld the order of the CIT(A). Aggrieved the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Authorised Representative (the Ld. AR) submitted that the Assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale as well as retail ... undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which are ITA No.1420/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Swarnasarita Jewellers 10 purely in the nature of the factual findings, do not require any interference

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

merit of the additions, however could not su however could not succeed. Aggrieved the assessee is in cceed. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal

Bmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalibmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Vs Acit (Int. Taxation), Ltd., 600, Singapore, Circle-1, Pune. 20-01/10 Parkview Square, Foreign, Singapore. Pan: Aaecb 0642 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Farrokh V. Irani, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, DR
Section 274

passed the impugned order including IT Support service charges of Rs.42.42 crore in the total income. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee had preferred the appeal before the Tribunal for A.Y. 2018-19 (supra). 4 BMC Software Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. 4. That, in the aforestated case of the assessee, the Tribunal

Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bardhaman vs. DCIT, Cir. 2, Asansol

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

ITA 1405/KOL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 154

February 23, 2024 1 Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dishergarh 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), Asansol dated 05.03.2018 passed for A.Y. 2004-05. 2. Before adverting

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

find any reason to allow these grounds of the appellant. Ground of Appeal No 4 is Dismissed. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 6. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copies of notices issued in all these four years i.e., notices

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

find any reason to allow these grounds of the appellant. Ground of Appeal No 4 is Dismissed. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 6. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copies of notices issued in all these four years i.e., notices

Sreenavaladian Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Centralcircle, Salem

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

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

find any reason to allow these grounds of the appellant. Ground of Appeal No 4 is Dismissed. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 6. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copies of notices issued in all these four years i.e., notices

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Salem

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

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

find any reason to allow these grounds of the appellant. Ground of Appeal No 4 is Dismissed. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 6. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copies of notices issued in all these four years i.e., notices

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

untenable and therefore allowed as long term capital loss for the current year. This ground is therefore allowed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.CIT-DR only relied on the decision of Geotze (India) Ltd., supra and stated that the issue ... dated 02.06.2015 among others. ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 Accordingly, the CIT(A) quashed the reopening. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The ld.CIT-DR mainly relied on the reasons cited by the AO rejecting the objections. He argued that the burden to make full and true disclosure

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

untenable and therefore allowed as long term capital loss for the current year. This ground is therefore allowed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.CIT-DR only relied on the decision of Geotze (India) Ltd., supra and stated that the issue ... dated 02.06.2015 among others. ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 Accordingly, the CIT(A) quashed the reopening. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The ld.CIT-DR mainly relied on the reasons cited by the AO rejecting the objections. He argued that the burden to make full and true disclosure

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

untenable and therefore allowed as long term capital loss for the current year. This ground is therefore allowed.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.CIT-DR only relied on the decision of Geotze (India) Ltd., supra and stated that the issue ... dated 02.06.2015 among others. ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 Accordingly, the CIT(A) quashed the reopening. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The ld.CIT-DR mainly relied on the reasons cited by the AO rejecting the objections. He argued that the burden to make full and true disclosure

Kmb Estates LLP, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore - 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2018 declaring total loss of Rs.1