← 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

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. The Revenue is in appeal before the tribunal against the decision of the CIT(A). We have while considering the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 on the issue of disallowance

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. The Revenue is in appeal before the tribunal against the decision of the CIT(A). We have while considering the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 on the issue of disallowance

Sanjay Kumar Hirachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2659/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyash Shah, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: 09.01.2024 & 23.01.2024
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

stating that the assessee has not discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the impugned purchase transactions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee is contending the appeal both on legal grounds as well as on merits as below: “1. On the facts

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. The Revenue is in appeal before the tribunal against the decision of the CIT(A). We have while considering the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 on the issue of disallowance

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. The Revenue is in appeal before the tribunal against the decision of the CIT(A). We have while considering the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 on the issue of disallowance

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. The Revenue is in appeal before the tribunal against the decision of the CIT(A). We have while considering the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 on the issue of disallowance

Spiritual Impressions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7074/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde a/w Shri KumarFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” Spiritual Impressions Pvt. Ltd. 7. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us also the ld. AR presented arguments contending the validity of the re-opening under section

Tirupati Buildings and Offices P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

ITA 202/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

writ petition which was disposed of by order dated 07.10.2022 with observation that assessee has recourse to alternate remedy of appeal before the Tribunal and this order of Hon’ble High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but there was no relief to the assessee ... partly allowed and addition made on account of amount surrendered was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). The Department had come up in appeal before the Tribunal and on failure of the assessee to appear by order dated 28.05.2018 the appeals of Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes and the issues were

Tirupati Buildings and Offices P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

ITA 201/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

writ petition which was disposed of by order dated 07.10.2022 with observation that assessee has recourse to alternate remedy of appeal before the Tribunal and this order of Hon’ble High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but there was no relief to the assessee ... partly allowed and addition made on account of amount surrendered was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). The Department had come up in appeal before the Tribunal and on failure of the assessee to appear by order dated 28.05.2018 the appeals of Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes and the issues were

Pawan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Prcit, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Vs. Prcit, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Rohtak Prince Plywood Home, Fuwara Chowk, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surajbhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 28

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. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar vs. M/S Jamna Auto Industries Ltd., Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 690/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

assessee was allowed and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the issue and held that no reason was given by the Assessing Officer, as to why the value of semi

ITO, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar vs. M/S Jamna Auto Industries Ltd., Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

assessee was allowed and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the issue and held that no reason was given by the Assessing Officer, as to why the value of semi

Venkatesan Ramaiah, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporte Ward10(5), Chennai

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

ITA 1294/CHNY/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1294/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Venkatesan Ramaiah, Income Tax Officer #1, Rajammal Street, V. Non Corporate Ward -10(5), 6Th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030 . Aayakar Bhavan, 121, M.G. [Pan: Aabpv-0386-M] Road, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Anand Babunath, Ca : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Anand Babunath, CA
Section 54B

came to know that the appeal order has been passed on 29.05.2023 itself. Thereafter, the appellant has taken steps to file appeal before the Tribunal and in the process, there is a delay of 112 days. The delay in filing of appeal is neither intentional nor to derive any undue

Kundapura Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi

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

ITA 1027/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kundapura Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Head Office, Kundeshwara Temple Road, Udupi. Kundapura, Udupi District – 576 201, Karnataka. Pan : Aaaak 3448 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Akshay, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Akshay, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

specific grounds were raised before him). Page 4 of 5 7. Aggrieved by the Order of CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the case laws relied on, statement of computation of income for the Assessment Year

Nandha Kishore, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4), Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1022/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the notices were sent to the email-id of the assessee’s CA and therefore the assessee was not aware

ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Oppo Mobiles India (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3789/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

centre expenses is deleted This ground of appeal is ruled in favour of the appellant.” 5. The Revenue is dissatisfied and is in appeal before the Tribunal. All the three grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. CIT(DR) supported the disallowance made by the Ld. AO. He highlighted the reasons

Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.CIT., Circle-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 634/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 501, Madhuram Apartment V. Tax, Nr. Sant Kabir School Circle-2(2)(1) Ahmedabad – 380013 Ahmedabad-380015 Gujarat Gujarat Pan: Ammps 1447 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 21/06/2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18 (Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053833888(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 26/12/2019 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao") U/S.143(3) Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023131866(1)). Bhavin Gunvantbhai Sagar V. Dcit Ay 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.36,60,000/- is hereby confirmed.” 3.1. The assessee has now filed second appeal before the Tribunal, and at the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has duly filed reply before Ld.CIT(A) on 12/06/2023 vide acknowledgement

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 192/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.192/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh-530001, Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 2(15)Section 263Section 43B

opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam dated 21/11/2013, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the period, while the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam passed ... sustained the addition of Rs. 5,05,43,233/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present 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

Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-34(1), Kolkata.

ITA 1211/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

hearing : January 11th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : January 22nd, 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 18.09.2023 passed

Smt. Sunita Devi Chhajer, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Suri, Birbhum.

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

ITA 1202/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148

hearing : January 11th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : January 22nd, 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 15.09.2023 passed