“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

Twinings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

based on the decision by the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta, alternate plea of the assessee was also dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, in the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had filed an application with

Karamshi Jethabhai Somaiya Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2608/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. K. Gopal a/w Ms. NehaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule , Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

claim and delete the addition thereafter if the claim is found to be correct. This ground is partly allowed. The assessee is appeal before the Tribunal contending the issue of re-opening u/s 147 of the Act on legal grounds. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Ms Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1063/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy.Cit Vs. M/S. M.S Agarwal Circle 16(2) Foundries (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics4832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing: 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2024 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In Manufacture Of Sponge Iron. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 Admitting Income Of Rs.5,730/- & Also Revised Return Of Income Admitting Income Of Rs.9,760/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Converted Into Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)

Agarwal Foundries Page 4 of 10 ITA No 1063 of 2017 MS Agarwal Foundries 5. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional

B.P. Poddar Foundation for Education, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Date of pronouncing the order : January 05, 2024 O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.03.2023, which is arising

Shri Ritu Raj Singh, Port Blair vs. ITO, Range-37, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143Section 250Section 250(3)Section 253Section 253(5)

assessment. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed out that there is delay of 2083 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee 2 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ritu Raj Singh. submitted before the Bench that the delay

Rajendra Mulchand Varma, Mumbai vs. ACIT-DCIT - Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3214/MUM/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

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

Jagdish (for short ‘HJ’). Not being satisfied with the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the 5. Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of INR 57,00,000/- in the hands of the Appellant

Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi L/R of Late Vobilisetty Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 275/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Vobilisetty Venkata Ward-1(1) Satyanarayana Murthy Rajahmundry D.No.2-40-14, Alcot Garden Rajahmundry [Pan : Acxpv6079M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

Section 144Section 69A

Subbalakshmi, L/R V.V.Satayanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 03.04.2023 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal on or before 02.06.2023, but the assessee could file appeal only on 03.11.2023 with the delay of 154 days. I find that there ... 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

Mr. Balkrishna Pandey, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1023/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263

cash deposits made into the bank account. Aggrieved by the revision order so passed by learned PCIT, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Learned DR submitted that the return of income filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny for the reason that

Chenniyappan Mohanraj, Perundurai Taluk, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 984/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjunraj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 69

balance explanation given by the assessee was rejected and restricted the addition at ₹22,69,290/-. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. :- 3 -: I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and 5. circumstances of the case. As regards to balance addition sustained

M/S. Prime Property Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT C 10 (3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3291/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed both the additions and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chettinad

Iris Clothings Ltd, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1015/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Date of pronouncing the order :January 02, 2024 O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 06.09.2023, which is arising ... record, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal below have in details considered the fact that the share application money was paid by account payee cheque, the creditor appeared before

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 772/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.769, 771 & 772/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Varathsingh Jai Singh, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 128, 5Th Street, Cross Cut Road, Income Tax, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Central Circle I, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akhpj5413H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 30 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petitions For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

completed the appellate order by partly allowing the appeals of the assessee. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for all the three assessment years. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has 5 I.T.A. Nos. 769, 771 & 772/Chny/23 submitted that the assessee filed the written

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 771/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Varathsingh Jai Singh, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 769/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Aditya Jhanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atharv Mundra, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 68

upheld the order of the AO and thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before me, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submissions as under :- “ The facts in brief are that the assessee is a young individual

Indira Giri, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Deparment Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied with 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

Madhu Souharda Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha, Madhugiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 969/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 56Section 80A(5)Section 80P

grant the deduction claimed u/s 80P of the I. T. Act. and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR vehemently argued and relied on the submissions made before the lower authorities. He fairly admitted that the decision

Gundarlahally Ramesh Meera, Challakere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Challakere

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

ITA 914/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Ms. Gundarlahally Ramesh Meera, Vs. Ito, #01, Pavagada Road, Ward – 1, Challakere – 577 522. Chitradurga. Pan : Afhpm 7158 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 69

delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning

Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(1), Banglore

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

ITA 909/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Ltd., Ward – 5(2)(1), No.5, Sakamma Bhavana, Bengaluru. Vishveshwarapura, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aabak 4862 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tarun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book comprising of 66 pages enclosing therein copy of the ITR, computation of income for Assessment Year

V. S. Educational Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1010/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. Syed Ashraf Ahmed Nadeem Lasani, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 144Section 250Section 57

with the notices, therefore the order of the AO was confirmed and appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. AR submitted that due to wrong advise the assessee filed return in ITR-5 which is not applicable