← 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

Relx Inc, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward International Taxation-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Basanta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT directed the Ld. AO to revise the assessment order. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a tax resident of USA and is engaged

Ours Youth Club, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed 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 nine grounds of appeal, which were later revised by filing a petition for revising the grounds of appeal as the original grounds

Dimpal Rajeshkumar Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, ground No1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 14/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

also upheld the addition of commissions income added by assessing officer for availing such entry. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative

Sahyadri Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane -1, Thane

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

ITA 1509/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

with a direction to examine the applicability of provisions of section 80P(2)(d) and redo the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing on the assessee. We, however, find that the appeal

M/S. T.C. Software Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1218/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(1)Section 68

that the assessee has not discharged the onus of providing proper explanation and substantiation of the claim made. 5. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee prayed before the Tribunal for restoration of the case back to the Assessing Officer for the reason that the co-ordinate

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd (in Respect of M.S, Icici Ltd Merged With M.S, Icici Bank Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8435/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

made by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) deleted the same. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the findings of CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06 in ITA NO.6137/Mum/2008 and 5276/Mum/2013, respectively. The Revenue ... Representative had submitted before us that the issue relating to part disallowance of administrative expenditure was not considered earlier by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, however, we do not agree with the same. We have noted that in the preceding assessment year, the assessee itself has disallowed

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8420/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

made by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) deleted the same. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the findings of CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06 in ITA NO.6137/Mum/2008 and 5276/Mum/2013, respectively. The Revenue ... Representative had submitted before us that the issue relating to part disallowance of administrative expenditure was not considered earlier by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, however, we do not agree with the same. We have noted that in the preceding assessment year, the assessee itself has disallowed

Jignesh Panchal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2049/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M Balaganeshjignesh Panchal, Vs. Dcit, A-44, (Basement), Amar Colony Circle-1, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aempp6645L Assessee By : Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 205

counsel further submitted that the impugned first appellate order dated 19.11.2021 was never served on the assessee till the date of filing of appeal before the Tribunal and when it came to knowledge of the assessee then the order was downloaded from the departmental portal of Income

Shree Star Carrying Company, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 62(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed ex parte

ITA 2564/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediashree Star Carrying Vs. Ito Company Ward – 62(5) 10394/1, Gali No.13, New Delhi Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi-55 Pan No. Abqfs 6800 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

ground that notice u/s 133(6) of the Act has remained unattended and un- complied. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. Having regard to the fact that several opportunities were given in the past

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham vs. M/S P.C. Patel & Company, Bhuj

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 24/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

admissible on motor lorries used in the assessee’s business of transportation of goods on hire. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT [A] taking note of the scope of work awarded to the assessee under the tender terms

Ramchandra Mangilal Sarathe, Khandwa vs. ITO-I Khandwa, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of the assesse for A

ITA 654/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramchandra Mangilal Ito-1 Sarathe Khandwa Gram Mathela Vs. Khandwa

Section 254

delay as well as contention of Ld. DR. The assessee has taken a plea of no knowledge of law for filing the appeal before the Tribunal against impugned order. The contents of the application as well as affidavit filed by the assesse are very vague and not even explaining

Shripal Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO, 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 582/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shripal Builders Ito, 12(2)(3) Room No. 123 B/G, 1St Floor, 18, Saheb Building, 195, D. N. Road, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020

For Respondent: Shri. Paresh Deshpande
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

appeal before us challenging the impugned order. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee [hereinafter the “Ld. AR”] contended that in an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order u/s 263 of the Act. 4 Shripal Builders v/s ITO 12(2)(3) the Tribunal vide order dated ... assessee in spite of the several notices did not appear before the Ld. CIT and remained exparte. 9. The assessee in its appeal before the Tribunal had contended that it had never received any notice u/s 263 of the Act and the Tribunal set aside the order

Iwi Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14ASection 68

balance amount of Rs. 26,025/-. All the three additions were confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and hence the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The first issue relates to the addition of Rs.20.00 lakhs relating to unsecured loan taken by the assessee from M/s. Shyam Alcohol

Iwi Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1571/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14ASection 68

balance amount of Rs. 26,025/-. All the three additions were confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and hence the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The first issue relates to the addition of Rs.20.00 lakhs relating to unsecured loan taken by the assessee from M/s. Shyam Alcohol

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai vs. Suraj Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1277/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1277/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit-19(3) बिधम/ Suraj Exports Matru Mandir, Room De-8011/12/13 Bharat Vs. No.206, Grant Road, Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400007. Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Entire Addition Made By Ao (Purchases To The Tune Of Rs.3,79,50,581/-) & Restricting It To 8% N.P Of Such Purchases. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 11.10.2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.53,24,567/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That During The Search & Survey Action Conducted In This Case Of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain & Family On 03.10.2013, The Investigation Wing Came To Know That Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Controlled Many Companies/Firm/ Proprietory

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)

restrict the addition by estimating an additional margin of 3% on these purchases instead of 8%. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has 3 A.Y. 2007-08 Suraj Exports set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back

Rolta India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbsi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2123/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Rolta India Ltd. Ms. Mamta Binani, Irp Registration No. Ibbi/Ipa- Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 002/Ipn00086/2017-18/10227, Central Circle 1(1) 2 Nd Floor, Nicco House, 2, Room No.903, Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001, West 9 T H Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Bengal Vs. Old Cgo Annexe, Or Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22 Nd Street, Midc, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr2711G

For Appellant: Shri Renu Kapoor, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 140

Despite appointment of the Insolvency Resolution Professional, form no 36 is not replaced. Only IRP could have prosecuted this appeal or reinstated this appeal before the Tribunal. In terms of the Provisions of Section 140(c) (c) of the Act, this appeal should have been reinstated / filed

Akshar Infra, Bharuch vs. ITO(TDS), Bharucn, Bharuch

In the result, the ground Nos

ITA 276/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.276/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Akshar Infra Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bharuch, Hari Kunj, R.S.No.347, Old N.H.S. Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Nr. Samrajya School, 356069 Andada, Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393001 Pan No. Abbfa 5016 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

taking view that such plea was applicable when they were not deemed to be assessee in default. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative

Vijaykumar Mohanlal Gopalani, Ulhasnagar vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1568/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(1)Section 147

various expenses claimed by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We heard the parties and perused the record. The first issue relates to the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases. We noticed that the total

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Fancy Devi., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3245/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sacit, C. Circle-2(1), Fancy Devi, Room No.804,8Thfloor, B-502, Oberoi Sky बनाम/ Oldcgoannexbuilding, Heights, Cross Road, Vs. M.K.Road, Lokhandwala, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aegpj5895J (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Ankush Kapoor.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Mahaveer Jain.AR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Bombay High Court in yet another case of Gurinder Singh Bawa (2017)(70 taxmann.com 398) as under:- “5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that no assessment

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

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

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

Limited (Gujarat High Court) Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 in Para 5/7 it was held that 5. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not address the question of correctness of the C.I.T. (Appeals)'s conclusion that amount of Rs. 70 lakhs represented