“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

Trak Services (P) Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

ITA 860/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Trak Services (P) Limited, Income Tax Officer, B-19, Defence Colony, Ward-16(3), New Delhi-110024 Vs C.R. Building, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0911A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. & Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am

Upon assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that original return was filed

M/S. White Willow, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.370/Srt/2022 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S White Willow Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat, Vishram Apartment, Opp. Vs Anavil Business Centre, Sawlani Estate Bungalows, Pal Hazira Road, Adajan, Beside Trinidhi Apartment, Surat-395007 Ghod Dod Road, Regent Mall, Surat-395007 Pan No. Aabfw 4804 F ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

section 68 to prove the identity, creditworthiness and 6 M/s White Willow genuineness of such transactions. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submission of Shri Tushar P. Hemani, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar advocate

Saffron Educational Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 8815/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Ussaffron Educational Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax 104-Chiranjiv Tower, (Exemption), 43, Nehru Place, Vs Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, New Delhi-110019 Civic Centre, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaets2830G Assessee Revenue

Section 10Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)

This assessment order as said above has been set-aside by the NFAC. Against this the Revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal, which is pending for adjudication. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication

Sri Chaganti Satsangam, Pithapuram vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 157/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.157/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Not Applicable) Sri Chaganti Satsangam, Vs. Income Tax Officer Pithapuram, (Exemption Ward), Andhra Pradesh-533005. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abuas 3490 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

form No.10AB seeking registration U/s. 12AB is hereby rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 3 “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (E), Hyderabad is contrary to the facts and also

Parivarthan, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 155/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154 & 155/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: Not Applicable) Parivarthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Kakinada, (Exemption Ward), Andhra Pradesh – 533005. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaeap 2047 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

vide his order dated 19.03.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), Hyderabad, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (E), Hyderabad is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

Parivarthan, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 154/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

The Central Goods& Serive Tax and Employees Thrift and Co.Op Credit Society Ltd, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 107/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.107/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Central Goods & Service Tax & Vs. Income Tax Officer Employees Thrift & Co-Op Credit Ward-1 Society Limited Kakinada Ground Floor O/O The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs, Port Area Kakinada [Pan : Aacat8895R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.Govinda Raju, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Employees Thrift and Co-op Credit Society Ltd., Kakinada 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. That the Impugned Order (Order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed

Rama Rao Karnam, Visakhapatnam vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 141/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.141/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mr.Rama Rao Karanam Vs. Joint Commissioner Of 4-4 Chandrampalem, Durga Nagar Income Tax Madhurawada Range-4 Pothinamallayapalem S.O. Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan : [Bcppk19929Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043662508(1) Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 28.03.2019, Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,20,230/-. During The Course Of Assessment

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the orders passed under the provisions

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Tirumala Steel Enterprises, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 73/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Tirumala Steel Enterprises, Tax, Circle-1(1), 26-8-62, Rajaram Mohan Roy Visakhapatnam. Road, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aalfs 6152 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Tirumala Steel Enterprises, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 26-8-62, Rajaram Mohan Roy Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Road, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aalfs 6152 N (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Visakhapatnam is erroneous on facts

Delhi International Cargo Terminal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1736/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 199Section 40A(7)

learned CIT(A) challenging those additions was 2 Delhi International Cargo Terminal Private Limited partly allowed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The first issue relates to the addition of Rs. 14,33,555/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A) under section

Mirnal Mehta, Cuttack vs. ITO Wrd-2(4), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.170/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Mrinal Mehta, Vs Ito, Ward-2(4), Cuttack Iswar Dham, Alamchand Bazar, Cuttack Pan No. :Afupm 1868 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 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 28/04/2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052428107(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ld. Ar Has Filed His Written Submissions, Which Read As Under :- Written Submission Facts Of The Case -- The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. The Appellant Filed His Audited Return Of Income For The Aforesaid Assessment Year. The Appellant'S Return Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass On Reason For Substantial Cash Deposits In Banks. Notices Were Served On Appellant Regarding The Matter For Verification. In Response To The Notices & Show Cause Notices The Appellant Produced All The Materials Alongwith Books Of Accounts & All The Bank Accounts Statement For Verification. The Same Was Duly Verified By The Assessing Officer & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 31/12/2019. The Ao On Verification Of Bank Accounts Found That The Assessee Has Deposited Rs.58,65,000/- In The Bank Account With Icici Bank Ltd. & Treated As An Unaccounted Cash Sales Of The Assessee & Thus Gross Profit Of The Assessee Was Estimated @ 8% On The Total

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270A

been reopened and the reassessment had also been completed on 30.03.2022, wherein additions have been made, which was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.169/CTK/2023. It was the submission that the Tribunal has quashed the reopening of the assessment, consequently the original assessment 4 becomes

DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal vs. Trishla Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on this ground

ITA 2468/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition of Rs.1.85 Cr. has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and hence the revenue appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) has also held that the amount of Rs.1.75 Cr. be added to the total income of the year in which

Trishla Buildtech Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle Karnal, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on this ground

ITA 2093/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1949/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 142(3)Section 147Section 148

addition of Rs.42,46,330/- i.e. 20% of Rs. 2,12,31,648/-. 19. Aggrieved, both the Revenue and the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). The revenue filed appeal against the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) on account of bogus