“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

Mirae Asset Global Investments (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2176/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

grounds and reasons mentioned in the appellate order. 6. Aggrieved by the reduction in the quantum of disallowance revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the contention of the assessee that no exempt income was claimed by the assessee under section 14A of the Act and, therefore

Priti Milan Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 153ASection 153BSection 68

appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made on protective basis. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee raised various grounds contending the issue on merits and the assessee vide letter dated 215/06/2023 also raised an additional ground

Nokia of America Corporation (As Sucessor of Alcatel Usa Sourcing Lp, Haryana vs. JCIT (OSD) International Tax- 1(1) (1), Mumbai

Appeal are disposed off as being infructuous

ITA 2104/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234A

directions, dated 24/09/2010, issued by the DRP under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 4.3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the Final Assessment Order, dated 06/10/2010. Vide common order dated 05/08/2016, passed by the Tribunal disposing off four appeals in the first round ... 13/09/2021 and soon thereafter, on 24/09/2021, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order which has been impugned by way of present appeal before the Tribunal. The contention of the Appellant is that the Final Assessment Order, 5. dated 24/09/2021, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read

DCIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Arvind Gupta, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 8146/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 148

accordance with provisions of law. 5. Against the said decision of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, in terms of the afore-stated Grounds of Appeal. 6. A perusal of the Grounds of Appeal, revealed that the only grievance of the Revenue

Mah Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

ITA 279/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.” 11. On the afore-stated facts, the coordinate bench held as under; “5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that

Vikram Vadhera, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8005/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

made by the appellant from M/s Vee Vee enterprise Rs. 395308/-is not genuine and bogus “ 3 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. Hearing was fixed for 16.10.2021, 12.10.2021, 13.12.2021, 16.02.2022, 28.07.2022, 20.10.2022, 08.12.2022, 22.02.2023, 13.06.2023 and finally

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 2622/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Aims Max Gardenia Developers Central Circle-7, Pvt. Ltd., R-19, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Pan: Aaica4047Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 69A

appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. The Tribunal had recalled its order on the basis of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue to adjudicate grounds No.3, 4 and 5. The facts relating ... additions amounting to Rs.3 crore, Rs.13,09,33,749/-, Rs.50 lakh and Rs.26,01,000/-. 3. Aggrieved against this, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that

Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Govada, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 210/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2023 & 210/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Govada Income Tax [Rep.By Legal Heir Son Circle-1(1) Mr.G.Balakrishna] Visakhapatnam D.No.31-35-41, Vivekananda Colony Assam Gardens Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aappg5719B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.Bala Krishna, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee’S Legal Heir, His Son, Shri G.Balakrishna Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 31.05.2023. Since, The Grounds Raised In The Appeals Are Identical In Nature, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2023. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.Bala Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 250

furnished his submissions with proper evidences to support his claim. 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

Maga Sai Ramalingavara Prasad Govada, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 209/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G.Bala Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 250

The Neerikode Service Co-Op Bank Limited No 1682, Neericode vs. ITO Ward 3, Aluva

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, and the stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 954/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

months together that has led to, firstly, non-representation before the first appellate authority and, then, the delayed filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, the second appellate authority under the Act. This attitude is further borne out by the averments by the incumbent Secretary, i.e., that her predecessor

Amalsad Vibhag Kelvani Mandal, Amalsad, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 213/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Amalsad Vibhag Kelvani Mandal, I.T.O., C/O-H.D.S.M. High School, Exemption Ward, Vs. Amalsad, Room No. 105, Anavil Dist.-Navsari-396310. Business Centre, Adajan Pan No. Aaata 3923 C Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 24Section 254(1)

decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Nandlal Tolani Charitable Vs ITO(E) ITA No. 106/Mum/2016. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Atin Exports LLP, Surat

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

ITA 148/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Atin Exports Llp, Ward 2(3)(7), 4Th Floor, Shashvat Apartmental, Vs. Surat. Pipala Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. Pan No. Abbfa 6184 F Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 46ASection 68

such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue

Society for Govt. of Odisha Ashok Leyland Hmv Dti, Chhatia/AOP, Jajpur vs. ITO, Exemption, Cuttack

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

ITA 283/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.283/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Society For Govt. Of Odisha Ashok Vs Ito (Exemption), Cuttack Leyland Hmv Driver Training Inst. Village: Vidyadharpur, Chhatia, Jajpur-754023 Pan No. :Aahas 8958 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.06.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053666783(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Decided The Appeal Of The Assessee In A Very Casual Manner By Mentioning That Documents Were Not Submitted. It Was Submitted That Adequate Opportunities Have Not Been Granted To The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That In The Original Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act, There Was No Demand Raised On The Assessee. Subsequently, An Order U/S.154 Of The Act Was Passed On 17.12.2018 Without Issuing Show Cause Notice To The Assessee & Without Hearing The Assessee Wherein A Demand Has Been Raised. It Was The Submission That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Set Aside As Also The Order Passed U/S.154 Of The Act Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan Dash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

been filed before the ld.CIT(A). It was further submission that there was a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 4. I have considered the rival submissions

Ila Sanat Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2506/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

2506/Mum/2023 M/s Ila Sanat Jhaveri 6% whereby the disallowance is reduced to Rs.27,39,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the source and the genuineness of the funds borrowed is not questioned by the revenue. Further, it was submitted that

Dcti-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2081/MUM/2023[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 244A

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the additions against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.06.2019 granted relief to the assessee on three grounds and remanded two of grounds back to the assessing officer The assessing ... accordance with the directions given by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Bank of Baroda (supra). The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The main contention of the ld DR is that the manner in which the assessee

Dcti-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2080/MUM/2023[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 244A

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2334/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessment Year 2006-07. 3.2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17/01/2018 passed by the CIT(A), the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. The Appellant has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition

ACIT Central Circle - 26, New Delhi vs. Punj Lloyd Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6562/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

argument of the appellant, therefore, the AO is d\directed to delete the addition made.” 5. The Revenue is dissatisfied and is in appeal before the Tribunal and both the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 54/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

401/BIL/2014,115/BIL/2015,102,103,162/BIL/2017, 204/RPR/2017, 169/RPR/2018, 33/RPR/2019 204/BIL/2012, 382/BIL/2014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 5.3 Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal with the following grounds. 5.4 First, we shall decide the additional ground being 1(E) raised by the assessee regarding Disallowance of Amortization

Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 33/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR