“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Saini Industries Limited, Raipur

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

ITA 152/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)

crores is accepted and deleted the addition made by the AO in this regard. 4. Now, the department is in appeal before the Tribunal to challenge the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 5. At the outset, ld. CIT-DR, apart from the other grounds, specifically drew our attention

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 476/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(9)

several transactions were incurred for Luxury Hotels alongwith expenses for IPL match tickets expenses. The assessee in A.Y. 1992-93 has filed the appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has directed to allow 1/3rd of entertainment expense considering the nature of incurred expenses on guests and company employees accompanied

Saurashta Cement Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 457/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(9)

Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 39/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, I.T.O., 10, Mali Faliya, Mota Varachha, Ward-2(3)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Aqppm 7151 B Appellant Respondednt

Section 131Section 144ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

much relevance when all four contractors clearly stated that they have not undertaking any construction activity. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

Anjani Logistics Private Limited, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Vapi

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

ITA 384/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Anjani Logistics Private Limited, I.T.O., 301,302 Shree Jalaram Complex, Nr. Ward-1, Vs. Development Credit Bank, Vapi- Vapi. 396191, Gujarat. Pan No. Aahca 8368 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

show cause notice. The decision of Assessing Officer is right and legal and need no interference. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

Shree Ram Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(2)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 233/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Jaju (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposing penalty of Rs. 23,10,165/-. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-3, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No. 775/JP/2014 dated 01.07.2019 set aside the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity ... hearing to the assessee. 2.1. Now this is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal. The AO, on the basis of the directions given by the Tribunal vide its order dated 01.07.2019 in the 3 Shree Ram Sharma, Jaipur. assessee’s case, after giving opportunity of being heard

Shri Paritosh Rungta (Legal Heir of Shr Bharatkumar Rungta), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1138/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

passed the ex–parte order in the name of his deceased father. Subsequently, he approached his counsel, who advised him to file the appeal before the Tribunal against the ex parte order. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the filing of the present appeal is delayed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (Inv), Unit 7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1127/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

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

Section 131Section 272ASection 273B

DDIT(lnv), Mumbai is confirmed. The ground No. 1 to 6 are thus dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld.AR submitted that the details called for by the Assessing Officer through summons pertained to FY 2012-13 and that the account details pertained

H K Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO-34(2)(1) Current Juridiction, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

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

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

reason that none appeared before him in spite of granting several opportunities and based on materials available on record. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 3. There is a delay of two days in filing the appeal. The Ld.AR submitted that the appeal was sent through „speed post ... dealers. During assessment proceedings, the addition was made on estimation @ 12.5%. In first appeal, the addition was restricted to 3% and on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the addition was enhanced to 6%. The entire addition right from assessment stage to the Tribunal was merely on estimations

Yogender Kumar, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1339/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 194Section 194ISection 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 201A(1)Section 234E

Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the late filing fee imposed on the assessee.Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, none represented the assessee. From the perusal of the material on record, we note that on last several occasions, nobody

M/S M/S Shri Agrasen Jan Kalyan Trust, Raigarh(Cg) vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Excemption), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 334/BIL/2016[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Rpr/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) M/S Shri Agrasen Jan Kalyan Trust Vs Cit(Exemption), Bhopal At/Po: Kharsia Pan No. : Aaets 9269 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S.Agrawal, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2023 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 12A

public utility, which are far exceeds the allowed limit of 20%. 3. Against rejection order of the CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR before us submitted that the assessee is registered under Public Trust Act by SDO, Kharasia on 29.12.1978, copy of order

Tripoto Travel Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1779/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) who confirmed the addition so made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Tripoto Travel Pvt. Limited, AY: 2019-20 4. Before us, it is submitted that there are mistakes in the dates which have

Shri Anil Omprakash Mishra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 314/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Anil Om Prakash Mishra, I.T.O., A-281, Shubham Bunglows, Sachin, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Surat-394230. Surat. Pan No. Ajnpm 7661 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

levying penalty under Section 271B of the Act. 3 Sh. Anil Omprakash Mishra Vs ITO Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

Raj Chetankumar Bhajiyawala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 290/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raj Chetankumar Bhajiyawala, I.T.O., 2/4475, Shivdas Zaveri Ni Sheri, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Sangrampura, Surat-395002. Surat. Pan No. Bhspb 5211 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

basis of Circular of CBDT and thereby confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,00,500/-. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Abhyudaya Co-Op Bank Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1128/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

decision of co-ordinate bench assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No.1595/Mum/2020 dated 28.06.2022. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue is held in favour of the assessee by the co- ordinate bench in assessee

Parle Biscuits Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2484/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 28Section 40

confirmed the TP addition and gave certain directions with regard to the other additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. The assessee is contending the following issues through various grounds raised

Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Beil Infrastructure, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1950/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

respect of Landfill-II as separate undertaking. After being unsuccessful before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1849/Ahd/2014. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.12.2021 held that Landfill-II is a distinct and separate undertaking from Landfill-I and hence

Beil Infrastructure Limited ('Beil')(Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd), Gujrat vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 586/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Beil Infrastructure Ltd. ( Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd, Anlkleshwar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 400/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

Rajendra Shankar Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1400/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

calculat4e profit @ 8% on the turnover.” 2 2. There is a delay of 545 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. An application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, has been preferred on behalf of the assessee. It is stated that the order ... appeal to the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions, confirmed the addition made by the AO. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. For the sake of clarity the submissions