← 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

Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending the various additions/disallowances which are adjudicated as under: Disallowance of depreciation on obsolete asset – Ground No.1 The AO during the course of assessment ... further appeal the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Disallowance of write off of tender and securities deposit –Ground No.1 39. The AO in the course of assessment proceedings

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

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

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending the various additions/disallowances which are adjudicated as under: Disallowance of depreciation on obsolete asset – Ground No.1 The AO during the course of assessment ... further appeal the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Disallowance of write off of tender and securities deposit –Ground No.1 39. The AO in the course of assessment proceedings

Sanofi India Ltd Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending the various additions/disallowances which are adjudicated as under: Disallowance of depreciation on obsolete asset – Ground No.1 The AO during the course of assessment ... further appeal the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Disallowance of write off of tender and securities deposit –Ground No.1 39. The AO in the course of assessment proceedings

Saic Motor Overseas Intelligent Mobility Technology Co . Ltd., Shanghai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Hsiidc Building

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

ITA 2194/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

making an addition of Rs. 18,79,80,556/- to the Nil income returned by the assessee. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. 7. Ground

Narmada Venkiteela, Tirupati vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 43/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri N. Raja Kumar, DR

appeal. Learned CIT(A), therefore, found no infirmity in the assessment order and accordingly confirmed the same. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, raising various grounds, mainly on confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 49,37,974/-, on which taxes were fully paid

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 444/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 444/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Raghu Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer Renewable Energy Ltd, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccr0908F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.7.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Not Condoning The Delay Of 549 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,32,624/-

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raj Kumar, DR
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

NFAC did not adjudicate the grounds on merit. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order was passed on 7.4.2021 and the appeal was supposed to be filed

Invest Smart India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 331/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Invest Smart India (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 2(1) Pan:Aftpg1095F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raja Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.04.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Did Not File Its Return Of Income Nor

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raja Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 68

INVEST SMART INDIA P LTD 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the provisions of section 271(1)(b) r.w.s

I.T.O, Ward-6(1).Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Digvijay Vinimay (P) Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 700/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 68

merits. Page 2 of 11 I.T.A. No.: 700/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Digvijay Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

S 279 Kottathupatti Pacs Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1631/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)

appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) also not considered the plea of the 4. assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. I have heard the rival contention and perused the material on 5. record. I noticed that assessee filed petition u/s.119

Arumugam Hema, Puducherry vs. ITO Ward 1 Puducherry, Pondicherry

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

ITA 1597/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 274Section 69A

action of the AO for the reason that the assessee has not filed any reply to the notices issued. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Now before me, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted 4. that the assessment was framed ex-parte and best judgment assessment u/s.144

Amarnath Dhakshnamoorthy, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Puducherry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1596/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

hearing three times. As there was no response from assessee side, ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. When this was pointed out to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee what was the fault on the part of the ld. Assessing Officer

Kaliamoorrthy, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward 1, Puducherry

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

ITA 1595/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1595/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kaliamoorrthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2, Mathur Road, Ganapathy Ward 1, Chettikulam, Puducherry 605 015. Puducherry. [Pan:Aaepk9934B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2024 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.11.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.03.2018 Declaring An Income Of ₹.54,16,240/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

assessee for want of prosecution despite various opportunities afforded. 3. On being aggrieved against the exparte appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the detailed facts filed along with grounds

Periyaputhur Senniappan Saravanakumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Ward 2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1586/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1584, 1585 & 1586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

claim, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the bank had taken possession of properties as his accounts had become NPA and incurred heavy

Periyaputhur Senniappan Saravanakumr, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Ward 2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1585/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1584, 1585 & 1586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

claim, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the bank had taken possession of properties as his accounts had become NPA and incurred heavy

Periyaputhur Senniappan Saravanakumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Corporate Ward 2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1584/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1584, 1585 & 1586/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

claim, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the bank had taken possession of properties as his accounts had become NPA and incurred heavy

Babu Velu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Cricle 9(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1583/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

action of the AO for the reason that the assessee has not filed any reply to the notices issued. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. :- 4 -: ITA No.1583 /Chny/2023 5. Now before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and best

Sri Velmurugan Finance, Salem vs. ACIT Salem, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1576/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. D Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 144Section 69A

Since assessee could not provide evidence before ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee proffered an appeal before the Tribunal. I have considered the assessment order and order of the CIT(A) 4. and argument made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee

No- 9481 Karadivavi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Triupur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2). Tirupur, Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1562/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

means that the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.37,26,054/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. I have heard the rival contention and perused the material on 5. record. I noted that the assessee earned interest from savings bank/current / FD accounts maintained

Vellakovil Coop Primaryag, Tamilnadu vs. Addl(Or)JCIT(A)-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1554/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the 4. action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. :- 3 -: ITA No.1554 /Chny/2023 Before me, none is present from assessee’s side. I have 5. heard ld. Senior DR and gone through

Presidency Kid Leather Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1524/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1524/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

rejected the submissions of the assessee rejected the appeal in limine. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that against the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, the assessee pursued alternate remedy