“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

Manne Krishna Kishore, Rajahmundry vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 312/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

part relief to the assessee and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the explanation submitted by the assessee towards ... assessee seeking condonation of delay. It is apparent from the record that there is an inordinate delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 17/05/2019. For the sake of immediate reference, we hereby

Palak Highrise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 218/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

before me. On merits also there is nothing on record to support the issues raised in this appeal.” 3.2. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Palak Highrise Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 4. In the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that appeal before

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 467/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

charging of interest on assessed income which is contrary to the provisions of law. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. However, going through the grounds, we find that ground no. 1 to 4 as read by assessee

Marimuthu Viswanathan, Erode vs. ITO-Ward-2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 911/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Guduri, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)

accepted the plea of the assessee and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, now theassesseeis in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The only plea made before me by the ld. Counsel for the assessee

S. P. R. Drillers, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 888/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri, JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

facts of the case. Accordingly, addition made on this issue of Rs.10,92,878/- is sustained. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee has declared total turnover at Rs.75

J F Chit Funds Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1139/CHNY/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Sree Valli Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 143(3)

reconciliation and evidence, the addition of Rs.20,96,817/- stands sustained. Thus, in the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The ld.counsel for the assessee before me pointed

Shri Subramaniam Elangovan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

ITA 1074/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1074/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & S.P. No. 42/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1074/Chny/2023 Subramaniam Elangovan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 37, Laxarus Church, 2Nd Lane, Non-Corporate Ward 1(2), Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aaape2824Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 26.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 2692 Days Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, Wherein, Following Submissions Were Made:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 69

assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 2692 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition in support of an affidavit, wherein, following submissions were made: 2 I.T.A. No.1074/Chny/23 & S.P. No. 42/Chny/23 The appellant ... during appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing consolidated peak working from bank statements along with statement of account for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 and other details

Sanjiva Raok Kubevoor Prakash, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(1), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1073/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

within the Assessing Officer’s discretion to proceed with the assessment based on the information at hand.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew my attention to the appeal set and particularly page No.59, wherein explanation is filed that

Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sawai Madhopur

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 615/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148

result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds as stated in para 2 above. In support of the various grounds so raised

M/S. Ganesh Jewellers, Davangere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 971/BANG/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojari, Acountant Member Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ganesh Jewellers, Vs. Dcit, #32, Nrupathunga Road, Chanagiri, Central Circle – 1(2), Davangere – 572 131. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaefg 5018 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh N. Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

basis of which additions have been made. 4. 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 case laws relied on, written submissions filed before the CIT(A), panchanama drawn during the course

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 343/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.343/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Tower D, 10Th & 11Th Floors, Circle – 4(1)(2), Global Technoloyg Park, Marathahalli – Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaecm 5559 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mukesh Butani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

software development segment amounting to Rs.12,21,83,641/-. 4. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has raised 16 grounds and various sub- grounds. However, during the course of hearing, the learned AR submitted that he is pressing only ground

Coral Venture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2483/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chhajed and Mr. Hitesh RathodFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. M/s Coral Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 4 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above

M/S Cavalcade Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1612/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

also upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved also upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal raising grounds as the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal raising grounds as the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal raising grounds

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward-4, Khanna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kuldeep Singh, ITP and Shri M.P. S. Malhotra, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 206CSection 68

selling party the addition is rightly made. 9. In the aforesaid background, it was submitted that the assessee has again come in appeal before the Tribunal. 9.1 It was submitted that the proceedings have been wrongly initiated under section 147 of the Act. In this case, information was received

Sanjay Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Hydrabad

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

ITA 531/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita 531/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sanjay Agarwal Vs. Ito Hyderabad Ward 4(4) Pan:Aiipa0998F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,25,86,518/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Sanjay Agarwal Hyderabad 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that at the relevant time the wife of the assessee was suffering from cancer and was undergoing

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

Limited batch 21. Aggrieved by such part relief granted by the learned CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeals before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous to the extent ... admission made by the assessee and deleted the balance amount for which the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. It is the submission of learned AR that merely on the basis of 2 or 3 sale instances, the entire sales cannot be extrapolated

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2048/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2047/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153A