← 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

DCIT Cir. 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4337/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

reached the stage of finality as the Department has not accepted the decision of the learned CIT(A) and has preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, at this stage, the interest on refund should not be taxed. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3439/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

reached the stage of finality as the Department has not accepted the decision of the learned CIT(A) and has preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, at this stage, the interest on refund should not be taxed. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised

Nitin Kumar, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Dhurav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 28Section 56

this fact came to the knowledge of assessee who is uneducated having limited knowledge of computers. Therefore the delay caused in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed his affidavit supporting the cause of delay stated in the condonation petition. The Sr. DR oppose to the condonation ... appeal by NFAC came to his notice in December 2022 on receipt of copy of order in the said month he immediately filed appeal before the Tribunal on 06.01.2023 by the delay of 161 days. In my humble understanding the assessee is duty bound to explain delay by submitting sufficient

DCIT-CC 5(2), Central Range 5, Mumbai vs. M/S Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 652/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

only in respect of consideration received from a resident.” 4 ITA 652/Mum/2023 M/s Jet Privilege Pvt Ltd 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.DR submitted that though the assessee has proved the identity and the creditworthiness of the transactions, the Assessing Officer has made

Chandan Singh Yadav, Badaun vs. ITO Ward - 2(3), Badaun

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 1972/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargchandan Singh Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vill. & Post Khandwa, Tehsil Ward-2(3), Bilsi, Badaun Badaun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cbhps9366K

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav Mehlotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

passed first appellate order on 25.11.2019 which was received by the assessee on 25.12.2019 and last date of submission of second appeal before the Tribunal was 23.02.2020 and the assessee filed appealed before the Tribunal on 22.12.2020. After submitting the above factual chronology of the dates the ld counsel submitted ... quasi judicial authorities therefore, this period needs to be excluded. The ld counsel submitted that in fact the actual delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal would be calculated Chandan Singh Yadav for the period from 23.02.2020 to 15.03.2020 which is 21 days and keeping in view the position emerged

Rrpr Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 4700/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR
Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return under Section 139(5) of the Act, beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1). 7. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee broadly reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and contended that where the original return albeit

Mr.Vineet Shrivastava, Bhopal vs. The ITO ( It&Tp), Bhopal

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

ITA 107/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(12)Section 144C(13)

application filed by the assessee and therefore, the assessee was left with no option but to file the present appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned assessment order passed by the AO which suffers illegality as not inconsonance with the directions of the DRP dated 29th June 2022. 3. Thus

Vile Parle Prarthana Chsl, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

PCIT set-aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to do assessment de novo. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s. Varma Chambers Premises Co-operative

ACIT, CC-26, Delhi vs. Jai Maa Bhawani Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and Cross

ITA 230/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08th August 2019 has decided that the revenue would not prefer any appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the revenue be decided ... proposition. 4. Upon careful consideration, we find that the CBDT vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 has revised the monetary limit for filing the appeals before the Tribunal to Rs.50 Lacs. Further, CBDT vide letter dated 20.08.2019 has also clarified that Circular No.17/2019 would be applicable to all pending appeals

Rahul Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-46(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7956/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 154Section 260ASection 271

effect. Thus, the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) allowed the relief to the assessee. Not satisfied with the order, the Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated August 31, 2015, annexure A.3, the Tribunal upheld the decision taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jaypee Infra Ventures (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6092/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Dcit, Vs Jaypee Infra Ventures (A Private Circle-13(2), Company With Unlimited Liability), New Delhi. Sector-128, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201304. Pan-Aaccj5628G Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri V.K.Garg, Adv. & Praveen Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-5, New Delhi Dated 26.04.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

sustained the addition of Rs.2,80,170/- related to prior period expenses. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Apropos to Grounds of appeal, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below

Alexandria Real Estate Cyprus No. 1 Limited, Nicosia, Cyprus vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5052/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directed to make assessment afresh. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceeding. The notices sent through registry by speed post have been returned back

Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4613/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma
Section 142(1)Section 250

revenue from House Property and not allowing the claim of setting off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years, filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) Mr. R.S. Singhvi, Ld. CA at the outset claimed that the Assessee’s Accountant in the original

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bwi Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1257/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Indra Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 92C(2)

simply followed his predecessor's order dated 16.09.2016 for the preceding A.Y. 2011-12, on which, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal vide order dated 13.10.2021 in ITA.No.1669/Del./2017 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restoring the matter

Ajit Singh Malik, Haryana vs. ITO, Panipat

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

ITA 5540/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 44

filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has affirmed the action of the AO vide order dated 16.08.2016. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 16.09.2016. The appeal has been dismissed on 22.12.2016 owing to non-attendance of the assessee. The order has been recalled vide order

Lokanadha Rao Battina, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.92/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Lokanadha Rao Battina Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.54-11-33/3/1, Aditya Nagar Ward-3(3) Isukatota Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apqpb9831H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) 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. The Assessing Officer is not justified in levying penalty under section 272A

Madhu Construction Company, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 90/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.90/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Madhu Construction Company Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3, Phase 1, Stbl Ward-2(5) Sitarama Gardens Visakhapatnam Sattivanipalem, Sheelanagar B.O Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aakfm5907E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 43B

Income Tax-1, 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 : The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (herein after

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

given to the assessee before passing the order. 3.3 Aggrieved from the finding of the ld. PCIT the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. To support the grounds so taken by the assessee, the ld. AR for the assessee has submitted his written submission and the same

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2204/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsaamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Central Circle – 19 B-67, Sarita Vihar, B, New Delhi New Delhi-110 076 Pan No. Aajcs 4952 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Srhi M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

order dated 16.01.2018 in Appeal No.327/16-17 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that sum of Rs.8

DCIT Circle 6 vs. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1877/DEL/2007[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 1996-97 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sahara India Financial Central Circle-6, Corporation Ltd., New Delhi 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up Pan :Aadcs8698C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. Arpit Goel, Advocate Department By Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2023 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Jm: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 22.01.2007 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. Deleting The Addition Of Rs.81,50,93,579/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Reimbursement Of Expenses To Agent. Ay: 1996-97

Section 143(3)

within reasonable limits. Against the aforesaid order of first 2 | P a g e AY: 1996-97 appellate authority, the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 20.05.2003 in ITA No.747/All/200, though, held that the approach of the Assessing Officer in estimating the expenditure ... direction to the assessee to provide the actual interest liability. Against the said decision of learned First Appellate Authority, Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the pendency of Revenue’s appeal before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer while implementing the direction