← 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

Shamanna Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1120/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Shamanna Reddy, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chowdeshwari Rice Building, Ward – 4(1)(3), Opp. Hi Look Bakery, Bengaluru. Kasavanahalli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Ccwpr 8342 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

admitted. The appeal is infructous and is, therefore, dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein written submissions filed before the CIT(A), the case laws relied on, statement

Chirag Tejprakash Dangi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 3256/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 148Section 68Section 69C

assessed the same u/s 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee is a regular investor in shares. He submitted that the assessee has purchased shares in physical

DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wanbury Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Wanbury Limited, B Wing, 10Th Floor, Income Tax, Circle – 15(3)(1), Bsel Tech Park, Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Vs. Sector 30, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Vashi Railway Station, M.K. Road, Vashi, Mumbai - 400020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aabcp5939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2024 Order Per : Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07.02.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short The Ld. Cit(A)] For Assessment Year 2015-16, Raising Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,29,63,154/-, Without Considering The Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015 Of The Board Regarding Employer'S Contribution To Funds For The Welfare Of Employees In Terms Of Section 43B (B)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filing appeal prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for filing appeal prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for filing appeal before the Tribunal vide circular dated 28.08.2019 the Tribunal vide circular dated 28.08.2019 the Tribunal vide circular dated 28.08.2019 ,therefore the appeal of Revenue of Revenue

Ufo Moviez India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-27, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Ufo Moviez India Limited, Vs Addl.Cit-27, Office No.12, 3Rd Floor, C. R. Building, Valuable Techno Park, Plot New Delhi. No.53/1, Road No.07, Marol Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai-4000093. Pan-Aabcv8900E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm By Way Of This Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

dividend income earned by the assessee. 3 | P a g e 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties categorically submitted that against the order of Ld.CIT(A), no appeal has been filed by the Revenue

Apeejay Surrendre Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 988/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

addition. 4.3. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who also confirmed the addition so made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Assessee has placed a paper book on record containing 74 pages along with a case law compilation containing 16 citations

Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 987/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

addition. 4.3. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who also confirmed the addition so made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Assessee has placed a paper book on record containing 74 pages along with a case law compilation containing 16 citations

Hi Tech Systems and Services Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Hi Tech Systems & Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Services Limited C/O, Subash Agarwal & Vs. Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. (Pan: Aaach6621F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80ISection 80l

infirmity in the order of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.95,61,844/- and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional ground dated 13.12.2023. The additional ground raised ... Systems & Services Ltd., AY 2020-21 adverse inference was drawn in the assessment order in this regard. The mistake was perpetuated by filing appeal before the Tribunal. In this respect, the computation sheet annexed to the impugned assessment order was perused. At Sl. No. 12 of the computation sheet under

Baba Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

ITA 925/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 249Section 253Section 254Section 263Section 3Section 5

hearing : February 6th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : February 19th, 2024 ORDER Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ): The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 07.02.2023 passed ... well-versed with filing of Page 4 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 925/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Baba Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, he approached the Counsel who is well-versed with the proceedings before the ITAT and filed the appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

Genesis Intellectuals (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 591/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted before the bench that assessee is fully abide

Kgvk Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-2., Kolkata

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

ITA 549/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 549/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kgvk Agro Limited,..................................Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Flat-3, 46B, Sridhar Roy Road, Kolkata-700039 [Pan: Aaacu9032H] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Kolkata-2, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Anuj Masaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 115BSection 2Section 263Section 68

Date of pronouncing the order : February 19, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 1 KGVK Agro Limited dated 25.03.2023 passed under section

Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-292), Kolkata

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

ITA 1261/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1261/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.,......................Appellant 14, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 17, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aahca4737A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69

Date of pronouncing the order : February 19, 2024 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), Income Tax 1 Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

Dipak Kanti Mazumder, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1040/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1040/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dipak Kanti Mazumder Asst. Director Of Income Tax, 43, Raja S.C. Mallick Road Vs Cpc, Bengaluru West Bengal - 700084 [Pan : Aevpm3879E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 165 Days & Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed & We Find That The Delay Was On Account Of Not Following Up Of The E-Mail Id By The Assessee On Which The First Appellate Order Was Received. However, When The Assessee Was Apprised Of The Same By His Authorized Representative, He Immediately Took Steps For Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Considering The Same & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

order was received. However, when the assessee was apprised of the same by his authorized representative, he immediately took steps for filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the same and in the larger interest of justice, delay is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing

D.C.I.T Cir - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S Jkm Investment Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 380/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 274

Date of pronouncing the order : February 19, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Kolkata dated 30.11.2012 passed for A.Y. 2009-10. 1 M/s. JKM Investment

Kannan Kumaresan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruvannamalai

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on the merits. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record. Admittedly, assessee is a sub dealer of M/s. Meena LPG Industries and carrying

M/S Blessing Agro Farm India Limited, Madurai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Madurai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Blessing Agro Farm India The Income Tax Officer, Limited, V. Corporate Ward -1, 1E, 1K, Ss Colony, Madurai. Madurai, Tamil Nadu – 625 010. [Pan: Aadcb-6709-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

1504/Chny/2023 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 23 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal, for which a petition along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay in filing has been filed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to petition filed

Smt. A. Sathya, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 1414/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

deposit, the appellant's argument is rejected. The action of AO is upheld. As a result, appeal is dismissed’’. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I note that assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.11

Natarajan Priya, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1246/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

noted that an appellate order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 30.07.2021 and was received by the assessee on 30.07.2021. The appeal before the Tribunal was to be filed on or before 20.09.2021 but actually the appeal was filed only on 08.11.2023 thereby there is a delay

Rajesh Agarwal, Vidhyadhara Nagar Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer WD 4(1), ITO Jaipur

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

ITA 22/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68Section 69C

order under section 30(1) of the 1922 Act, and that since it was an order under section 30(1), no appeal lay the Tribunal against that order. As no appeal lay to the Tribunal under section 33, the Tribunal could not consider the question whether the AAC should ... limitation 8 ITA No. 22/JPR/2024 Rajesh Agarwal. vs.ITO 12. As is evident, there was delay of 3389 days in filing the related appeal before the Tribunal by the appellant, Tribunal has returned a clear finding that no sufficient cause was shown by the appellant to explain the huge delay. Period

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

ITA 963/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 876/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

ITA Nos.876 & 877/Bang/2023 & 963 & 964/Bang/2023 ORDER Per Bench These appeals are filed by the assessee & revenue against the separate orders