“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

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Learned. (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) An appellant before the Tribunal can raise any new or additional point for the first time in appeal before the Tribunal. (vi) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Dy. CIT (2009) 122 TTJ 577 (Mub)(SB) Appeal (Tribunal)-Additional ground-Question of limitation-Special Bench having been

Ankit Kalash, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 266/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee explaining the reason for such delay in filing of the appeal after 102 days from the prescribed date of filing of the appeal before the tribunal, that the personal e-mail ID of the assessee which was updated in the IT Portal was not generally used

Suyash Holding and Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer-8(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2528/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated 02/06/2018 held that the rental income received by the Assessee is not a “business income” and the same ... affirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, against which the Assessee being aggrieved preferred the instant appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITAs 2525 to 2528/Mum/2023 Suyash Holding and Estate Developers Pvt Ltd 7. Before the Tribunal, the grounds raised by the Assessee runs into

Suyash Holding and Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer-8(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2525/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sulochana Godhwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2245/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

same modus operandi cannot be a basis to accept the original transactions as genuine. 4. Further aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following main ground of appeal:- “The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in making additions of Rs.16,00,000 as the unexplained cash

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7309/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2011-12 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd. Central Circle-13, 205, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Samarpan, Chakala Link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Maharashtra. Pan Aabcl3501H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

surrender have been made with regard to share capital/share premium / share application money/unsecured loan. 6. The Revenue is dissatisfied and is in appeal before the Tribunal in both the years and all identical grounds relate thereto. 7. The Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to para ... record, as such, the finding so recorded by lower authority based on documentary evidences need be upheld”: “8. Revenue, when they preferred the appeal before the tribunal, did not file requisite papers and documents to support their contention that the finding recorded by the CIT(Appeals) was factually incorrect

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

The Indian Missionary Movement, Kawardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kawardha, Kawardha

In the result appeal for the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations

ITA 199/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain & R.B. Doshi, CA’sFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 253(5)Section 69A

filing of returns. Assessee has appointed a new counsel and therefore, causing a delay of 13 days in preparing and filing the appeal before the tribunal. Considering the request of the assessee and reasonableness of explanations furnished before us, the delay on account of sufficient cause 3 ITA 199/RPR/2022

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

extent of Rs.7.87 crores. 5. Being aggrieved with the order of the CIT (A) on the above account, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal on facts found that the investments made in shares which resulted in exempt income

Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Vijayawada

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

ITA 202/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Chigurupati Rajendra Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Dr.No.32-41-47/28, Near Library Ward-2(2) Machavaram Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan : Abjpc1799A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

record by the assessee against the order of the AO. 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 learned CIT(Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order

Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli, Krishna Dist vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

ITA 153/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rama MurthyFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

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. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Pr.CIT, Vijayawada erred

Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Bhimavaram vs. Yendangandhi Large Sized Co-Operative Society Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 243/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.243/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Yendagandhi Large Sized Ward-1 Co-Operative Society Ltd. Bhimavaram D.No.4-13, K.K.Road Yendagandi, West Godavari Dist [Pan : Aacat0967G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.01/Viz/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.243/Viz/2022) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Yendagandhi Large Sized Co- Income Tax Officer Operative Society Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.4-13, K.K.Road Bhimavaram Yendagandi, West Godavari Dist [Pan : Aacat0967G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 10.10.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)

Calicut & Ors dated 12.01.2021, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2

Rokadiya Wahid, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 128/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 127 & 128/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Rokadiya Wahid C/O. Mohd. Dilawar Rokadia, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihawa Road, Dhamtari-493 773 Pan : Acfpw4546A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

same had occasioned on account of failure on the part of assessee in delaying the deposit of the appeal fees for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Also, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields

Rokadiya Wahid, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 127/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Anil Nachrani, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

also held the re-assessment to be bad in law on jurisdictional ground. Against the order of the AAC the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal and specifically raised the plea that the Question of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment shaving been expressly given up by the assessee

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4600/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

finding that the AO merely suspected the transactions, FAA deleted the entire addition on this account. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 63 37. Before the ITAT, Ld AR for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO and filed the written submissions. The Tribunal directed

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 3606/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7477/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7052/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

New Leaf Home P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-18(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2485/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 New Leaf Home P. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-18(2) House No. 352, New Delhi. Sector-21 D, Nit Faridabad, Near Jiva Public School, Faridabad, Haryana, Pin : 121001 Pan Aadcn7291C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Meena, Sr.DR

Section 68

this, I uphold the disallowances made by AO and dismiss the grounds taken by the appellant.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 9 6. Ground No. 4 and 4.1 has not been pressed. It is therefore dismissed as not pressed