“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

M/S. Wrinkle Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 426/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

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. 5. In the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasized that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte without

Jai Trading Company, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(2)., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 194H

appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, ld. DR stated that details of commission payment to brokers were duly submitted before the AO during

Nagaraj Gowdanahalli Ramappa, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 980/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Shiva Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 68Section 69A

assessee did not reply despite several opportunities, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record.. The assessee has deposited

M/S. Centre for Urban Rural Development Society, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 979/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nischal, B., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 142(1)Section 69C

Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the absence of evidence from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the notices issued by the revenue authorities were not received by the assessee and hence there was no proper representation

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1558/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1558 /मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr.Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. This Appeal Emanates From The Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase &

Section 154

provisions vide assessment order dated 23/01/2017. Thereafter, the assessee filed petition u/s. 154 seeking rectification on the ground that the assessee had filed appeal before the Tribunal against the final assessment orders for Assessment Year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively. In the said application the assessee

Housing Devp. Fin.Corpn. Ltd vs. The ADIT Cir. 1(1)

ITA 552/MUM/2004[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A), who partially allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The effective issues arising for our consideration in the present appeal are as under - (a) Whether the Appellant would be entitled to deduction in respect ... allocation of expenses while computing the income eligible for deduction under section 36(1)( viii) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. With regard to the loans given for a period of less than 5 years and non- residential loans being eligible for deduction

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/HYD/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Srikanth, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

CIRCULAR NO. 15/2022 [F.NO.197/89/2022-ITA-I], dated 19-7-2022 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide the impugned

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/HYD/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

For Appellant: Shri S. Srikanth, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

M/S. Trinity Global Enterprises Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

wherein the subscribers bank account statements were forged and fabricated. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Arguments of ld. AR: 8. The ld. AR argued that in the case of M/s Oshin Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sidh

Vudatha Vani Rao, Rajahmundry vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 254/VIZ/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.254/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Vudatha Vani Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer 6-1-8/6, T.Nagar Ward-1(1) Rangachari Street Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aarpv7105J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

I.T.A. No.254/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Vudatha Vani Rao, Rajahmundry 4. 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 CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts

Swapan Chandra Mandal, Purulia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 131/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Swapan Chandra Mandal,.......................Appellant Village & P.O. Chelyama, District- Purulia-723145 [Pan: Akepm1916H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Purulia, I.T. Office Building, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

without deciding the issues on merit. When assessee came to know about the orders, then, he immediately collected the papers and filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, contended that the assessee failed to appear before both the revenue authorities and thereafter failed

Shri Sandeeep Raghuvanshi, Harda vs. The PCIT.Bhopal, Bhopal

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

ITA 142/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandeep Raghuvanshi Pr. Cit 25D Jambheshwar Bhawan Bhopal Vs. Nehru Colony Harda (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aicpr 3080 M Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11 .01.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

senior counsel for appropriate remedy against the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee was advised to immediately file an appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order and therefore, there is a delay of 320 days in filing the present appeal. Thus, Ld. AR has pleaded that

M/S. Moodbidri Co-Operative Service Bank Limited, Moodbidri vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji-Goa Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 930/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Moodbidri Co-Operative Service Vs. Ito, Bank Ltd., Ward –2(1), Door No.192, Main Road, Mangaluru. Moodbidri – 574 227. Pan : Aabam 7065 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 80P

pass consequential order". 7. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the return of income filed along with computation of total income, the financials

Hgc Global Communications Limited, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.28/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hcg Global Communications Ltd., Vs. Dcit (It), 16/F Hutchison Telecom Tower, Circle – 2(2), 99 Cheung Fai Road, Bengaluru. Hong Kong. Pan : Aaech 5871 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, Cas Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

For Appellant: S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 195(2)Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

directions, the impugned Final Assessment Order was passed on 24.11.2020. 4. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has raised in total 15 grounds (including the additional grounds filed vide application dated 02.12.2022). However, during the course of hearing, the learned

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd (Formerly Knwon As Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (As Ultimate Successor to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

business income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO and the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A) contended inter-alia that the amount in question

Piramal Healthcare Ltd ( Earlier Knownas Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

DCIT, CC-06, New Delhi vs. Kad Housing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 44A

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld. DR argued relying on the Assessment Order whereas the ld. AR supported the order

Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srikakulam

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

ITA 299/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 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. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under

Gollamudi Venkateswara Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 290/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.290/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Gollamudi Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.6-169 Ward-1(1) Deepaladinne Village Guntur Panidem Post, Sattenapalli Mandal Guntur [Pan : Aippg8383D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

decision as contained in the assessment order. 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 order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Nageswara Rao Viswanadha, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 213/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50C(3)

addition made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the directions in the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in 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