“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

Meenakshi Mercantiles Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2244/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

against 143(1) dated 30.11.2021 but relating to adjustments made in order u/s 154 dated 16.02.2022. 4. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the appellate order u/s 250 of the Act. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find

Bappaditya Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-24, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Afupc4296H] Vs. Acit, Circle-24, Hooghly………………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Preferred By The Assessee, One Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & The Other Is Deleting To The Levying Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Time-Barred By 1395 Days. As Per The Affidavit Of The Assessee Namely Shri Bappaditya Chakrabotry, It Has Been Deposed That The Appeal Orders Of The Cit(A) Were Received By The Assessee On 03.09.2019 & Thereafter The Assessee Approached His Advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, For The

Section 271(1)(c)

assessee approached his advocate, Keshab Lal Mukherjee, for the I.T.A. Nos.898&899/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bappaditya Chakraborty purpose of filing of appeal before the Tribunal. That the assessee was under bona fide belief that the appeals have been filed by the said counsel. Thereafter, there was an outbreak

Bappaditya Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-24, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Section 271(1)(c)

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

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

ITA 669/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT

Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 however, confirmed the penalty so imposed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. Before us, ld. Counsel submitted that since the assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) wherein submissions made by the assessee has been considered

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

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

ITA 668/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT

Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

Nat West Markets Plc- India Branch, Kolkata vs. ACIT(I.T)-1(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1364/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nat West Markets Plc-India Acit (I.T)-1(2), Kolkata Branch Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 2 Nd 907, Regus, 9Thfloor, Floor, Psarcadia,4A, Abandindra Nath Vs. 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanujia, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44ASection 56Section 68

thereafter, applied rate of 40% plus the educational cess and surcharge to bring the said amount under tax. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal against he said final order. 9. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that having regard to the factual scenario as narrated hereinabove it is clear

Rising Retails(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1005/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 197(1)Section 250Section 40a

account of failure to deduct tax at source as required in section 194C of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us no one has represented the assessee even though notice for hearing has been served which were issued by RPAD. After 4 Rising Retails

Shivratri Exim(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1004/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

assessee, the appeal was decided on the basis of material available on record and was thus, dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We note that impugned assessment order is passed u/s. 144 of the Act since assessee did not comply with the show cause notices

Mansarovar Ferrous Private Limited, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 13(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 957/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69C

went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) whereby certain relief were granted and the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, we note that this appeal was filed in the year 2018. Several dates of hearings have been fixed since

M/S. Mudrika Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 569/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

upheld the finding arrived at by the Ld. AO, sustaining the addition so made and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to make its submissions

Sre Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayaki Amman Kumbabisheka Malar Kuzhu, Sivagangai vs. The ITO, Exemptions Ward, Madurai

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

ITA 978/CHNY/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

advice, the assessee was advised to file another application in Form No.10AB, which he did. However, assessee was also advised to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the rejected application. Hence, this delay was caused, which is beyond the control of the assessee. When this was confronted to ld.CIT ... adverse inference is drawn against the applicant's existing and valid registration, if any, as per law u/s. 12AB. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, it is noted that the assessee has simpliciter made a technical mistake

M/S. Manipal Hospitals (Dwarka) Pvt. Ltd., (Before Merger Approved by Nclt Known As 'Manipal Hospitals (Jaipur) Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1075/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 40A(2)

does not have relationship with the services received. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is one of the many companies which are under the holding company MEMGIIPL which

Hansa Girish Shah, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 3303/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions. r appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Vijay Kashinath Jagtap, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1440/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Miss. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 251Section 68

without allowing deduction under Chapter-VI-A is justified. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 7. Still aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.34

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai-400021 vs. Iconic Realtors Ltd., Mumbai-400021

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1437/MUM/2022[2008-09`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Cit, Cc-6(4), Iconic Realtors Ltd., Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 11, B Wing, Mittal Tower, Free India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Mumbai-400021. Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabci 7348 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 69C

PCIT) on office of the Principal Commissioner of Income office of the Principal Commissioner of Income 31.01.2022 , therefore, filing therefore, filing of appeal before the Tribunal was appeal before the Tribunal was due on 30.03.2022, whereas the appeal has been filed on 27.05.2022. whereas the appeal has been filed

Kattula Venkateswara Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 41/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.41/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kattula Venkateswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abdpk 2476 L Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 274

except statements in his written submissions. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

Sukhibhava Builders and Developers Private Limited, Kukatpally vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Vishakaptanam

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

ITA 239/VIZ/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sukhibhava Builders & Developers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd Income Tax H.No.Mig-111, Ground Floor Circle-4(1) Road No.1, Kphp Colony Visakhapatnam Kukatpally, Hyderabad [Pan : Aancs3916K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

evident from the records that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 12.03.2023 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal on or before 11.05.2023, but the assessee could file appeal only on 23.09.2023 with the delay of 135 days. We find that there ... documents and make submissions in response to the appeal filed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-NFAC (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) failed to appreciate that

Lakshmana Rao Sambangi, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.224/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sambangi Lakshmana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.F-2, Sai Praneetha Residency Ward-1 Town Center Layout, Vizianagaram Nr Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Vizianagaram [Pan : Arhps1747C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y.Surya Chandra Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s 154 is erroneous

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M and M Equipments Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Annamalai, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

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. Page 3 of 8 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income ... limitation period.” 7. Aggrieved from the order of the CIT(Appeals), both the revenue and assessee by way of CO are in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and submitted that in the previous AY, the transactions recorded in the directors

Aijaz Ahmed Suri, Badami vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1157/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kulkarni, CA

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3.3 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Assessee has filed Paper Book comprising of 92 pages inter alia enclosing therein copies of the show cause notice, replies filed before the Ld.AO, copy