“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

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

assessment year 2010 finding in assessment year 2010-11. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Tribunal by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. of raising the grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3383/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.3383/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., ‘Prakashgad’ 2Nd Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaecm-2933-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-14(2)(1), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.2635/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-14(2)(1), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Maharastra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., ‘Prakashgad’ 2Nd Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaecm-2933-K Assessee By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Smt.Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Smt.Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

prior period expenditure in the impugned assessment year. He submitted that in Assessment Year 2012-13 the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal assailing 4 ITA NO.2635/MUM/2019(A.Y.2014-15) disallowance of expenditure in ITA No.4630/ Mum/2017. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 10/10/2023 placing reliance on order ... placed reliance on the decision of his predecessor for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee carried 6 ITA NO.2635/MUM/2019(A.Y.2014-15) the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.4630/Mum/2017 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench in turn following the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.3813/Mum/2009

DCIT-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maharasthra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2635/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Smt.Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Vineet Bahety, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1267/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 18.03.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year: 2019-20 “1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned

Vineet Bahety, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1266/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Bisharpara Kodalia Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Dumdum vs. ITO, Ward-49(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bisharpara Kodalia Cooperative Income Tax Officer, Ward- Credit Society Ltd. 49(2), Kolkata Vs. Nabajiban, Bisharpara, Dum Dum, West Bengal-700158. (Pan: Aaaab9104B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

wish to pursue the appeal. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Bisharpara Kodalia coop. Credit Society ltd., AY 2018-19 4. We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the record placed before

Soundararajan Nagaraj, Chennai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1, Madurai

The appeal stand dismissed as not admitted

ITA 484/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.484/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Soundararajan Nagaraj Pcit बनाम 87, Railway Station Road, Madurai-1, / Vs. Dindigul-624 003. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpn-0068-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath (Ca) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

para-6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated by assessee that the assessee intended to file said appeal before the Tribunal and conveyed the same to Shri Nagaraj (stated to be an Income Tax Petitioner) at Dindigul. It has further been stated that on the assurance given

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -5(1), Chennai vs. H.Noor Mohammed, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

ITA 2324/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Rs.62,193/-. The Appellant gets relief of Rs.8,53,373/-. The grounds taken on this issue are partly allowed. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard ld.CIT-DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has taken

M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd Guruvayanakere, Belthangady vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 1008/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward –1, 1 ‘Jeshta’ Uppinangady Road, Puttur. Guruvayanakere, Belthangady – 574 217. Pan : Aabas 3237 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

impugned CIT(A)’ order). Page 3 of 7 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the submissions made before the income tax authorities, the case laws relied on, the relevant provisions

M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd Guruvayanakere, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 1007/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward –1, 1 ‘Jeshta’ Uppinangady Road, Puttur. Guruvayanakere, Belthangady – 574 217. Pan : Aabas 3237 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd Guruvayanakere, Belthangady vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 1006/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward –1, 1 ‘Jeshta’ Uppinangady Road, Puttur. Guruvayanakere, Belthangady – 574 217. Pan : Aabas 3237 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

para 6 of the CIT(A) order, page 17). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the submissions made before the income tax authorities, the case laws relied on, the relevant

Anshul Dewat Singhal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-34(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3427/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: MS. Vinita Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

therefore passed an ex-parte order without going into the merits dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. There is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and in this regard the ld. AR submitted that the assessee ... further submitted that the assessee is not well versed with the income tax proceedings and that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was unintentional. Accordingly the ld AR prayed that the delay may be condones. 5. The ld DR on the other hand vehemently opposed the condonation

Babu Hira Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3312/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Bhanushali, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Gujarat High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar M Sangvi Vs. ITO (Appeal No. 1037 of 2017). Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has discharged the onus by furnishing the various details such as the income tax return

Nitco Paints Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 234ASection 270ASection 801A(4)(iv)Section 80I

assessee has failed to provide the details of Chartered Accountant (CA) who audited and certified Form 10CCB. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Nitco Paints Ltd. 5. There is a delay of 203 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard ... assessee. However, once the assessee came to know that the CIT(A) has passed the order, the assessee immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR also brought to our attention that in the case of one of the assessee's group companies Jayam Realty Management

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

completed on 29.07.2022 by the AO under section 143(3)/ 92CA/ 144C(13) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground No. 1 is general in nature not requiring adjudication. Ground No. 8 relating to disallowance

Demi Realtors, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

valid reason for delay in filing the appeal.” 06.12.2013 Feeling aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A) dt.19.02.2013, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA 649/Hyd/2013. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dt.06.12.2013 18.12.2014 The assessee paid an additional sum of Rs.2 ... paid on the appeal filing date. 5.4. The assessee, after passing of the order by the ld.CIT(A) had filed the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dt.20.01.2012 (supra) had remanded back the matter to the CIT(A) with direction to the assessee to file an application

Rajatgiri Oil Industries, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 337/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

treatment as business income. Rajatgiri Oil Industries., AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Against this relief, department is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee in this respect is infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed. Accordingly, issue raised by the assessee