“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

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1101/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

allowed relief to the assessee deleting all addition/disallowance. deleting all addition/disallowance. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in , the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as r appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as r above. 3. Before

Shakuntala Ashok Vyas, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1898/MUM/2020[2012-13``]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shakuntala Ashok Vyas, Ito-19(3)(3), 17, Ground Floor, Labh Matru Mandir Vs. Niwas, 33, Khetwadi 4Th Lane, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acapv 6232 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)

Section 250

dismissed. y, this ground of the appeal is dismissed.” y, this ground of the appeal is dismissed. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced

Mamta Rani, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(2), Saharanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

opportunity of being heard before any of the Assessment/Appellate authorities. 2. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing ... Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,89,500/- made by the Assessing Officer is accordingly upheld.” Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. No one attended the proceedings at the time of hearing. It is seen from the record that for many dates

Major Suresh Yadav(Retd.), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9432/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2003-04] Major Suresh Yadav (Retd.), Vs Ito, Farm No.36, Dera Mandi Road, Ward-24(3), Mandi Gaon, Near Chattarpur, New Delhi. New Delhi-110030. Pan-Aaupy5153C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mukesh Kohli, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

assessee and without adverting to the material placed before Ld.CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in written synopsis. For the sake of clarity, same is reproduced as under ... Tribunal permitting the assessee to raise the point concerning non- issuance of notice under section 143(2) for the first time in the appeal before the Tribunal, in view of the settled legal position that the requirement of issuance of such notice is a jurisdictional one, it does

Principal C.I.T-3, Nagpur vs. M/S Sukhkarta Developers & Builders, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/NAG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 263

Builders pursuant to which the instant assessment was made, has been quashed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal 3. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side

Uma Maheswara Reddy Majji, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 163/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.163/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15) Uma Maheswarareddy Majji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 52-11-11/1, Resapuvanipalem, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh – 530018. Pan: Alxpm 1484 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ss Sarat Chandra, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 31/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri SS Sarat Chandra, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 09 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. AR drawn the attention of the Bench to the Affidavit filed by the assessee wherein the reasons for not filing the appeal within ... assessee, I am of the considered view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause that prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, in my view, it is a fit case to condone the delay and hence I hereby condone

Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Bhaskar Rao, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward-1, Tuni

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 146/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.145/Viz/2023 & 146/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Vs. Income Tax Officer Bhaskar Rao Ward-1 A.V.Nagaram Tuni East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bespk1580A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

Ld.CIT(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

Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Bhaskar Rao, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Oficer, Ward-1, Tuni

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 145/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

Ramesh Babu Bandi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramesh Babu Bandi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.52-1/5-1 Ward-2(3) Flat Tf-1, Lakshmi Narayan Enclave Vijayawada Veterinary Colony Gunadala [Pan : Akppb0435R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

Section 144Section 69A

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 learned Assessing Officer had ignored the fact that the appellant is a farmer earning agricultural income

Jayton Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.65/Rpr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Jayton Trading Private Limited, Vs Dcit (Central)-2, Raipur 15, Crooked Lane, 1St Floor, Hare Street, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaacj 6659 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31 /07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhopal, Dated 06.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Dated 06/07/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act Dated 30/12/2019 Are Illegal & Void Ab Initio. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Confirming That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Bad In Law. 2.1 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Holding That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2019 Is Time Barred By Limitation In View Of First Proviso To Section 147 Of The Act. 2.2 That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The First Appellate Authority Erred In Confirming The Reason Recorded U/S 148(2) Of The Act Though The Same Is Only A Change Of Opinion On Account Of Borrowed Satisfaction Without Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

appeal of the assessee upholding the addition made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Initiating the arguments, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act 30.12.2019 was illegal

M/S. Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 297/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)

Section 143Section 250

stands partly allowed for A.Y. 2013-14.” 7. As the revenue not satisfied with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) preferred an appeal before the tribunal in ITA NO. 1039/JPR/2016. The said appeal of the revenue was disposed based on the CBDT circular having low tax appeal. The revenue

ACIT, Alwar vs. Raghuveer Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 1039/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)

Section 143Section 250

Krutika Rajendra Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed both the additions. Aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned AR submitted that the assessee has purchased 16000 shares of M/s. Sampada Chemicals Ltd. through a broker named Sharekhan Limited through stock

Simplex Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-1) Cir 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2554/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant company . Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 9. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the above order of the CIT(A). 8 ITA 2311/Mum/2014 & ITA 2554/Mum/2014 Simplex Realty Ltd ITA 2554/Mum/2014 (Assessee’s appeal ... been originally agreed with GPL. The CIT(A) upheld the above addition in AY 2009-10 against which the assessee went in further appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee during the appellate proceedings for AY 2010-11 raised the additional ground making the claim for the said amount stating that

DCIT (OSD-I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Simplex Realty Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2311/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Altico Capital India Limited, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By The Cit(A) Vide Its Order, Dated 13/12/2022. Now The Appellant Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Aforesaid Order Of The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Snayogita Nagpal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 205Section 234A

preferred appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide its order, dated 13/12/2022. Now the Appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal against the aforesaid order of the CIT(A). The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant took us the 4. following summary

Heart Foundation of India, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/MUM/2023[2023-24]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24

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

Section 12ASection 143(3)

assessee and proceeded to cancel the registration of the trust with effect from AY. 2016-17. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the retrospective cancellation of registration. The assessee raised 8 grounds regarding the issue of cancllation of Registration under section 12AB with retrospective effect

The ITO-22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Casa Grande Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1519/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(2)

investments with Co- Operative Banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, on revenue's appeal before the Tribunal, Hon'ble ITAT "C" Bench, Mumbai vide its order dated 29.10.2020 in ITA No. 1880/Mum/2019, in case of appellant

Ksa Enterprise, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1448/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 148

action of the Assessing Officer for the same reason that the assessee has not produced any valid legal documents. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had proposed to buy the property in Suryaji Compound

Rashtriya Chemicals and Ffertilisers Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1240/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh RavariaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(4)

Credit Society ITA no.1239/Mum./2023 ITA no.1240/Mum./2023 (A)'s order are relevant in this regard. Aggrieved with the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal with the present appeal. 4. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR for the Revenue submitted that the order