← 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

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 32ASection 801ASection 80I

which have yielded exempt dividend income during the relevant previous year. 5.3. Being aggrieved, both the Assessee as well as Revenue have preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 1 to 3 preferred by Assessee and Ground No.1 and 2 preferred by the revenue pertained to the issue under consideration

Watchood Properties Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8394/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

section 14A of the Act. Rest of the additions was sustained. 7. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Apropos to the ground of appeal, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there

Saikrupa Corporation, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(9), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Saikrupa Corporation, I.T.O., C-502, Prasang Residency, Opp Ward 1(3)(9), Vs. Green Avenue, L.P. Savani Road, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-395007. Pan No. Abkfs 6228 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)

rent paid to the parties, the treatment of non-genuineness of such expenses, is upheld. 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

Mohammedaltaf Abdulkadar Memon, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1) and DCIT, CPC, Surat

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

ITA 151/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mohammedaltaf Abdulkadar Memon, I.T.O. 4/4478 Taiyabi Street, Ward- 2(2)(1), Vs. Zampa Bazar, Surat & Dcit, Cpc Surat-395003. Bangalore) Pan: Ahzpm 3224 E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 44A

application under section 154 was debatable and was not a mistake apparent from the record. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

M/S Rudra Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 132/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

though recorded that the C.P.C. has rightly adjust income of Rs. 1.64 crore. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

M/S Rudra Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 131/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

though recorded that the C.P.C. has rightly adjust income of Rs. 1.64 crore. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80GSection 80L

year under consideration. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 17/12/2015 had held that – “15. Grievance raised vide ground No. 5 have been decided against the assessee ... reason that the provision made towards standard assets cannot be considered for deduction under section 36(1)(viia). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that in the order giving effect, the Assessing Officer has not complied with the directions of the Tribunal since

Uttam Ghewarchand Shrishrimal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 716/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

file any confirmation from the parties, no PAN or addresses of the six parties was produced. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA 716/Mum/2023 Uttam Ghevvarchand Shrishrimal 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had filed all the necessary evidences to support the genuineness

Rameshbhai Savjibhai Devani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(5), Surat

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

ITA 65/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.65/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rameshbhai Savjibhai Devani Income Tax Officer, 7312/4 G.I.D.C., Road No.7/73, Ward-1(2)(5), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Sachin, Surat-394230 (Gujarat) Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 392001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Addpd 4518 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Taja, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

notice was served upon the assessee and the assessee came to know that his advocate did not take necessary action to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we note that because of the mistake committed on the part of the advocate of the assessee, the assessee should ... considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT was not appealable before this Tribunal since they were not advised by their Tax Consultants about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised them to file an appeal, the assessees

Tara Raju Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 195/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition on merit as well. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

Shri Raju Maganlal Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition on merit as well. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative

Srg Exim P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 668/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132Section 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

Srg Exim P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 667/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132Section 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

Srg Exim Ltd., Kolkatta vs. Cy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 666/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132Section 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

Srg Exim P. Ltd., Kolkatta vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 665/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132Section 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

Morpan Merchant P. Ltd., Kolkatta vs. Dy CIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 664/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132Section 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

Morpan Merchant P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy CIT -CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 663/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132Section 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

Mmti'S Education & Research Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 451/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

incurred for earning of the income. Aggrieved of the income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above. Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above. Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above ... pressed before the assessee and therefore that ground was not pressed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Mmtis Education and Research Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2974/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

incurred for earning of the income. Aggrieved of the income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above. Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above. Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above ... pressed before the assessee and therefore that ground was not pressed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Mmtis Eduction & Research Trust, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) I(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5866/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

incurred for earning of the income. Aggrieved of the income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above. Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above. Tribunal by way of raising grounds reproduced above ... pressed before the assessee and therefore that ground was not pressed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground No. 1.2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed