“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

Income Tax Officer 41(1)(3), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Omsai Prints, Kalyan Bypass, Thane Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3005/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising grounds as reproduced above

Sanjay Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.652/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Sanjay Kukreja, Acit A-362, Defence Colony, Vs. Circle-54(1), New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

terms of the directions given in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80IA(7) with regard

Vijaykumar Naveen, Chennai vs. Adeit, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1397/CHNY/2023[2021-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2021-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1397/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tarun. G, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Bench has noticed that the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 344 days in filing the I.T.A No.1397/Chny/2023 :- 2 -: appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay in support of affidavit. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee

Kannan Yadav Parthasarathi, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-10(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1379/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1379/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 150 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed a I.T.A No.1379/Chny/2023 :- 2 -: petition for condonation of the delay in the form of an affidavit

M/S. Trend Setters, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 131Section 41(1)

assessee under section 41(1) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We heard the parties and perused the record. The outstanding amount shown by the assessee against the Dawer Group

Global Wool Alliance Private Limited, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata

ITA 2222/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 127Section 143(3)

Court had, in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd.: [2022] 141 taxmann.com 332 (SC), held that the jurisdiction to file appeal before the Tribunal would have to be determined keeping in view the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Since in the present case, the assessment

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Thane vs. Raj Maitry & Eskon Developer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2117/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalito Ward 4(1), R. No. 3, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle, Industrial Estate, Thane Thane (W)-400 064 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raj Maitry & Eskon Developer Viva Maitry Height, Opp. Cosmos, Legend, Sector-3, Viva Hdl Scheme, Virar (W)-401303 Pan – Aapfr9847R ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Gupta, Ld. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 46A(3)Section 68

sides that on remand the addition of Rs. 6, 06,725 has been deleted by the lower authorities and the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the dispute regarding deletion of Rs. 6, 06,725 in the present appeal does not survive. 10. As the assessee has established

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Star Line Leasing Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1973/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(a)Section 2(22)(e)Section 7

vide order, dated 28/03/2023, passed in appeal preferred by the Appellant-Company. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on 4. behalf of the Respondent/Assessee. In response to a query from the Bench

Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

ITA 4980/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

assessment year 1997-98 identical disallowance was made by Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) deleted the same, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.306/Mum/2001. The Co- ordinate Bench vide order dated 21/04/2004 dismissed the ground raised in the appeal of Revenue by observing

DCIT (It) -1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4898/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

ITA 3862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

DDIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are also partly allowed

ITA 3828/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.8841/Mum/2010 The Bank Of Nova Scotia Vs. Assistant Director Of Mittal Towers, B Wing Income Tax (It) -3(2) Nariman Point Scindia House Mumbai – 400 020 Ballard Pier Mumbai – 400 038 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb1536H Appellant .. Respondent It(Tp)A. No.3862/Mum/2013 The Bank Of Nova Scotia Vs. Additional Director Of Mittal Towers, B Wing Income Tax (It) -3 Nariman Point Air India Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb1536H Appellant .. Respondent Ita.No.3989/Mum/2012 Deputy Director Of Income Vs. M/S The Bank Of Nova Tax (It) -3(2) Scotia, Mittal Towers, B Scindia House Wing, Nariman Point Ballard Pier, N. M. Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 038

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) 3, Mumbai

ITA 4036/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

ADIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai vs. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

ITA 3989/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 5740/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. The Bank Nova Scotia, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5634/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and

ITA 8841/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

The ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. the Bank of Novascotia, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4655/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

Purnimasareen, Panipat vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 892/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Smt. Purnima Sareen Vs. Pr. Cit, 744-745, Model Town, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana-132103 Pan Bokps2116C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the records. Their arguments have

Ajit Kumar Patni, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 705/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

while the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground taken by the assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the above order assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing no one turned up before the bench and even from the office of registry try to contact the assessee