← 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

Star Asia Region Fz Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), who confirmed the TPO adjustment as well as the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of the DRP. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT

Vijayarama Gajapathi Co-Operative Sugars Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 2/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sri Vijayarama Gajapathi Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Co-Operative Sugars Ltd. Income Tax Bheemasinghi Circle-3 (1) Spo Sainik School Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram [Pan : Aacts1696N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhkar Aves, Sr.AR

before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the explanation, we are of the considered view that the assessee explained sufficient cause to prefer the appeal before the Tribunal belatedly, and therefore, we condone the delay. Further, in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit

Sri Keerthi Projects, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 164/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.164/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Keerthi Projects Vs. Income Tax Officer 3-20-14, Near Recruiting Office Ward-1(1) Pattabhipuram Guntur Guntur [Pan : Abjfs1107Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 40Section 69C

after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.PCIT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada is erroneous both

Kirti Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 977/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

action of the Assessing Officer and declined to interfere with the additions carried out towards unexplained jewellery. 8. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as material available on record

Kirti Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1067/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

action of the Assessing Officer and declined to interfere with the additions carried out towards unexplained jewellery. 8. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as material available on record

Standard Times Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 9352/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Standard Times Pvt. Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle 24(2), Raj Kumar & Associates, New Delhi. L-7A(Lgf), South Extension Part-2, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs3651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raj Kumar, C.A. & Sh. J.P. Sharma, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit/Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 153A

section 153A/144 of the Act. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned first appellate authority and being unsuccessful there, went in further appeal before the Tribunal. While deciding the appeal, the Tribunal in order dated 30.03.2016 passed in ITA Nos. 1689 to 1693/Del/2014 restored the issue to the file ... fresh assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has made a completely new addition, which was not part of the original assessment order and appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, in our view, while making this addition, the Assessing Officer has exceeded 9 his jurisdiction and has not acted in compliance with

Shri Jayesh Chandulal Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/SRT/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Dec 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2000-01) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Chandulal Shah, The Ito, Vs. A-74, Saify Society, Near Jain Ward – 3(3)(2), Temple, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. Old Jurisdiction Ito, Ward- 9(2), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adzps8832Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)

this continuous severe illness and the tension environment in the family, the assessee`s father could not take the decision to file the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel also argued that there is a mistake on the part of the Chartered Accountant/Advocate of the assessee ... Jayesh Chandulal Shah illness and the tension environment in the family, the assessee`s father could not take the decision to file the appeal before the Tribunal. However, I have observed that assessee`s father was active during the said period of 10 years and he used to furnish

Provestment Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2136/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 68

made u/s 68 by the AO is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate to challenge as to the validity of re-opening of assessment as also the merits

Zulfikar Kasam Momin, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 2084/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Zeal SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Ajudiya Manish
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

file submissions/documents despite various notices issued electronically after the migration of appeal to National Faceless Appeal Centre. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal 5. challenging the above dismissal order passed by the CIT(A). In Ground No. 1 raised in the appeal, the Appellant has contended

Bhanu Teja Bade, Machilipatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 255/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Bhanu Teja Bade Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.2/451, Desaipeta Income Tax Machilipatnam Circle-1(1) [Pan : Bzipb9626D] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by making the following grounds of appeal : 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming

Brookefield Infra Projects Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Yesosri Constructions Private Limited), Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 189/VIZ/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.189/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Brookfield Infra Projects Private Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Formerly Known As Yesosri Ward-3(3) Constructions Pvt.Ltd) Vijayawada Gf-1, Sri Sai Raghava Residency 4Th Road, Challasaninagar, Kannur Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacy4104A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

parte and directed the AO to re- examine the issues and complete the assessment denovo in accordance with law. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Ld.PCIT with the delay of 132 days and defect memo was issued and served on the assessee

Jai Bheem Scheduled Caste Drivers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/VIZ/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.696/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Jai Bheem Scheduled Caste Vs. Income Tax Officer Drivers Labour Contract Cooperative Ward-3 Society Ltd. Rajahmundry D.No.72-3-1, Spinning Mills Road Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaaa]7815K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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 of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – Ground No.1 5. The brief facts ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessee follows 'exclusive' method of accounting for MODVAT / CENVAT credit with regard to inventory

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – Ground No.1 5. The brief facts ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessee follows 'exclusive' method of accounting for MODVAT / CENVAT credit with regard to inventory

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – Ground No.1 5. The brief facts ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessee follows 'exclusive' method of accounting for MODVAT / CENVAT credit with regard to inventory

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – Ground No.1 5. The brief facts ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessee follows 'exclusive' method of accounting for MODVAT / CENVAT credit with regard to inventory

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – Ground No.1 5. The brief facts ... assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessee follows 'exclusive' method of accounting for MODVAT / CENVAT credit with regard to inventory

Pushpa Devi Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 816/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2014-15 Pushpa Devi Bajaj, Vs. Dcit, Ae-17, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle-32, Tagore Garden, Delhi. West Delhi, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan Abfpb2234D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 124Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

confirmed the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit entries received from parties. 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the addition of Rs. 51,250/- on account of agricultural income; addition of Rs. 93,000/- under section 68 on account of cash

ITO, Ward- 26(1), New Delhi vs. V S Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7089/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Revenue ByFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

requirement of genuineness of the transactions, identity of share holders/investors, addition cannot be made under section 68.” 6. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 7. None appeared for the assessee

Ramesh Mannava, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 252/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

along with an affidavit, filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee explained the reasons for belated filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted herein below for reference: “1 …… 2. Assessee being senior citizen and suffering from other ailments ... date except for the reasons stated herein above. ……” 4 3. On perusal of the reasons advanced by the assessee for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 15 days, I find that due to ill health of the assessee the assessee