← 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

S Sagar Enterprise, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) S Sagar Enterprise बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-1(1) Be-5010, Bharat Diamond Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Vs. Bourse, Bandra Kurla Cgo Annexe, Maharishi Complex, Bandra (East), Karve Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfs8866G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Dated 22.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee As Discernable From Perusal Of Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.16,17,140/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

learned Departmental Representative did not make any specific submission in the matter on the ground that this relates to procedure for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties. Admittedly, the appeal in this case relates to an order passed under s. 263. Therefore ... this regard, it is noted that Section 253 of the Act, prescribes the appeal fees an assessee has to remit while filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee’s submission is that since the captioned appeal is penalty appeal, fees need to be deposited as per sub-clause

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbaiqqq vs. Assessment Unit NFAC Cetnre ITO, Ministry of Finance Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddesh
Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 37(1)Section 68Section 92C

passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised various grounds and sub-grounds with regard to the following issues: Issue Ground No. Erroneous levy of income tax and interest thereon Ground No.1

Prateek Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3153/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Prateek Jain, Ito, 4634, Gali Mohar Singhjat, Ward-63(2), Phaari Dhiraj, Vs Civic Centre Delhi-110006 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aiypj1226D Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 69A

pursuing the appeal. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal without going into merits of the case. 5. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned

Ravinder Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 2816/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Passing Exparte Order Dt. 14.09.2023. Thus, Not Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

Section 143(3)Section 69A

dated 14/09/2023, dismissed the appeal ex-parte. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 14/09/2023 the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Sheraton Overseas Management Corporation, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2392/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Amit AroraFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

officer in bringing to tax the business receipts of the appellant in India is not acceptable.” 7 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned issue has been squarely covered by the order(s) of the Tribunal

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

assessment order with a direction to Ld. AO to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all grounds relate thereto. 8. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page 65-67 of the Paper Book and submitted that

Feather Infotech P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No891/Del/2022 concerning

ITA 977/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153C

provisions of Section 68 of the Act in tandem with Section 69C of the Act. 15. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised multiple grounds as noted above raising factual and legal contentions. 16. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset

Feather Infotech P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No891/Del/2022 concerning

ITA 891/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153C

provisions of Section 68 of the Act in tandem with Section 69C of the Act. 15. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised multiple grounds as noted above raising factual and legal contentions. 16. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolkata vs. Onkar Commodeal Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 880/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 69C

issue of interest income sustained the order passed by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. DR stated that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) by deleting the disallowance

JCIT(OSD)(E) Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. Population Services International, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1805/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)

occasion for any assessment and hence such assessment order will also be liable to be quashed.” 5. Dissatisfied the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO. 7. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the findings recorded ... pages 1-56 of the assessee’s paper book. Against the said order of the Ld. CIT(E), Delhi the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 30.11.2022 in ITA No. 433/Del/2021 held that the said order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) withdrawing

Eximcorp India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-5(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2582/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

hearing : January 24th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : February 9th, 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)-2, Kolkata [in short ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 17.10.2019 passed ... appeal before Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has set aside both the orders of the Tribunal, restored this appeal to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 28.11.2013 declaring

Smt. Nirmala Venkatapathy, Madurai vs. ITO, Ward - II (1), Madurai

Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed

ITA 2492/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2492/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Late Smt. Nirmala The Income Tax Officer, Venkatapathy, Vs. Ward Ii(1), Rep. By Legal Heir, Smt. Uma Madurai. Venkatachalam No.12, Jawahar Road, Chockkikulam, Madurai – 625 002. Pan: Agcpn 9068P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Ca (Amicus Curie) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai In Ita No.010/2013-14 Dated 08.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ii(1), Madurai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 14.03.2013. 2. The First Issue On Merits Is As Regards To Assessment Of Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, CA (Amicus Curie)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment order does not require any interference. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. As none is present from assessee’s side, we have requested Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA to represent as Amicus Curie in this case

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 580/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

Appeal No. 3 is accordingly rejected.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds as stated in para 2 above. In support of the various grounds so raised the ld. AR of the assessee heavily

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

Appeal No. 3 is accordingly rejected.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds as stated in para 2 above. In support of the various grounds so raised the ld. AR of the assessee heavily

Sea Trade Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central -2 (3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3094/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the present appeal was filed with the delay. It is further stated that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was unintentional. Accordingly, it was prayed that the delay may be condoned. 3. We heard learned DR on this preliminary issue. Having regard

Expeditors International of Washington Inc, Usa vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2855/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

final assessment order dated 22.09.2023 confirmed the impugned additions. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate thereto. 5. At the outset of the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the issues raised by the assessee in ground

ACIT Int. Taxation Circle-2(2)(1), Delhi vs. Mcdermott International Managemen, Panama

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for both the AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 are dismissed

ITA 2374/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora & Vishal Misra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 30Section 448Section 44B

being 10% of service tax amounting to INR 801,753,732)is hereby deleted.” 5. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and ground No. 1 and 2 relate thereto. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned issue is covered in favour

ACIT Intl. Taxation Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi vs. Mcdermott International Management, Panama

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for both the AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 are dismissed

ITA 2373/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora & Vishal Misra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 30Section 448Section 44B

being 10% of service tax amounting to INR 801,753,732)is hereby deleted.” 5. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and ground No. 1 and 2 relate thereto. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned issue is covered in favour

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

upheld the action of the AO on both counts. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.149/Del/2021 (Assessment Year 2009-10) are reproduced as under

H S Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

upheld the action of the AO on both counts. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.149/Del/2021 (Assessment Year 2009-10) are reproduced as under