“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

Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 369/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.369/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Vs. The Ito, Plot No.P-9/1, Everest Garden, Silvassa Ward, Opp. Indian Bank, Naroli Bank, Silvassa Naroli Road, Silvassa – 396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeqps7259R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 144

mother was also feeling severe illness since a long, in that circumstance also, the assessee could have instructed his advocate to file the appeal before the Tribunal, which the assessee has failed to do so, therefore, delay should not be condoned. 5. I have heard both the parties on this

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. -4, Surat vs. Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 223/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 63 & 64/Srt/2023 (Ay: 2016-17 & 2019-20) (Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee

Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 292CSection 69B

such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. Aggrieved by the action of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue and the learned ... basis of such observation, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 16. We have heard the submissions of parties. The Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Assessing Office and made submission

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1065/Mum/2017-Assessee's appeal. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act and adding the disallowance ... CENVAT / VAT directed the AO to rework the deduction based on actual expenditure and restrict the disallowance accordingly. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The ld. AR submitted that this issue is identical to assessee's own case

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

DCIT, Vapi vs. Gujarart Polysol Chemical Ltd, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 595/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.513 & 595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 Vapi, 8Th Floor, Fortune Square- Pan No. Aaacg 8908 Q Ii, Above Tbz, Chala-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent /Ita No.595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle, I, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase, Gidc, Vs Vapi, 9Th Floor, Fortune Vapi-396195 Pan No.Aaacg 8908 Q Square-Ii, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 254(1)Section 270A

extent of Rs.6.03 crores (9.01 – 2.70) and allowed part relief to assessee. Further aggrieved both the parties have filed their cross-appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has challenged the action in sustaining addition to the extent of 7.5% of impugned purchase whereas the Revenue has challenged the validity

Mukesh Rajendra Prasad Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Vapi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mukesh Rajendra Prasad Assistant Commissioner Of Thakur Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vs 3-9-9R Navjivan Society, Room No.708, 7Th Floor, Lamington Road, Mumbai- Fortune Square-Ii, Chala, 400008 Daman Road, Vapi-396191 Pan : Aarpt 3055 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 68

action of Assessing Officer in detailed and by a speaking order on both the additions. 6. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. Before the us neither assessee has filed even a single document to substantiate his agricultural income nor filed any written submission either

Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Limited Limited, Vapi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 513/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 254(1)Section 270A

DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi vs. Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 673/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

valid return in the eye of law. The Revenue has accepted this decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and is not in appeal before the Tribunal on the validity or otherwise of the revised return. Assessments of the past year(s) stand set aside by the decision (supra ... vast technical knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the payment made to a commission agent constitutes towards technical services.” 10.2 Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. At the very outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee has been paying commission to these two agents

Sunbeam Lightweighting Solutions Pvt Ltd (Formely Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 115/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Om Sai Stone Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

present appeal is filed on 03.10.2023, thus there is delay of 84 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 84 days in filing appeal. The application of assessee is supported by affidavit of Director of assessee company. The learned Authorised ... checked the e- mail and found that the order has been uploaded on the ITBA Portal and immediately took step for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee is not going

Om Sai Stone Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

Lex Sportel Vision Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Int. Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2397/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

hands of the non-resident overseas rights holder warranting withholding of tax u/s 195 of the Act. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the authorities below along with paper book and judicial precedents. 11. We have also

Chirag Mishrimal Hirani, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 582/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.582/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chirag Mishrimal Hirani Deputy Commissioner Of 301, Divyadarshan Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Vs Apartments, B/H Umra Police Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Station, Surat-395001 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan : Amups 4678 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

basis of such 4 Chirag M Hirani observation, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal 5. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior-Departmental Representative

The Vijayawada Electricity Employees Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 273/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Vijayawada Electricity Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-2 (1) Office Of The Assistant Engineer Vijayawada Operation, Kg Market Section Beside Vmc Building Apcpdcl, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaeat3589Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.Srinivasa Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhkar Aves, Sr.AR

Section 139(11)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Ajay Electronics, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 272/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

deleted the entire addition made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made

V V S K D N Soma Raju, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, Rajahmundary

In the result, four appeals of the assessee for the AYs

ITA 73/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 276C

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 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 order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable