“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

Hubergroup India Private Limited, Vapi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

inquiries on the aforesaid issue after giving reasonable opportunity to assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Departmental Representative

Bihar Foundation, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Patna

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

ITA 31/PAT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 12ASection 143(1)

Date of pronouncing the order : June 05, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Bihar Foundation (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

Shiva Enterprises, Patna vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Circle-6, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 250

Date of pronouncing the order : June 05, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shiva Enterprises (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

Pragati Pallavi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 86/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 86/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pragati Pallavi Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Vs Patna Flat No. 4 A/D Radha Kunj Apartment A.N. Path North S.K. Puri Patna - 800013 [Pan: Awhpp6938C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition For Undisclosed Cash Deposit U/S 69A Of The Act At Rs. 13,50,000/- Deposited During The Demonetization Period. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. Income Of Rs.8,40,280/- Declared In The Return For Assessment Year 2017-18. On The Basis Of The Reason That Cash Of Rs.18,50,000/- Has Been Deposited In The Bank Account Held By The Assessee With Kotak Mahindra Bank During Demonetization Period, Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Serving Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Submitted That The Assessee Holds A Joint Account Her Husband In Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C No.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions and paper book submitted that assessee’s husband is an Advocate registered with

Sri Ranjan Kumar, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 14/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

Date of pronouncing the order : June 05, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income 1 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Sri Rajan Kumar Tax, Patna-1 dated 26.02.2021 passed

Adarsh Sahakari Ghar Bandhnari Mandali Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 290/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 57

section 57 of the Act and does not require interfere with the action of Assessing Officer. 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

Distinctive Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD3(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 656/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 14A

interest expenses, the CIT(A) held that the interest cannot be treated as part of cost of acquisition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has borrowed funds and has used the same for making investment in sister concerns

Distinctive Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 655/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

Baiju Roy, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Patna

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

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

Date of pronouncing the order : June 02, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Baiju Roy (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna vs. C.I.T. -1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/PAT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

Date of pronouncing the order : June 02, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income 1 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Tax-1, Patna dated

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2018/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

income. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:- ―The grounds stated here under are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. General ... upheld the adjustment by relying on its own order for A.Y. 2015-16. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has done a proper benchmarking in the transfer pricing study with regard to GIS inter-group services, The Ld.AR drew

Karnataka Sangha, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.519/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2013-14) Karnataka Sangha, Dr. Vishveshwarya Smarak Mandir, Csm Marg, Off. T.H.Kataria Marg, Matunga Road (West), Mumbai – 400 016. Pan: Aaatk-3204-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(4), Prathistha Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai- 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 143(3)

submitted that because of negligence of the Department the assessee is forced into litigation and pay Rs.10,000/- towards filing fee of an appeal before the Tribunal, apart from engaging a Counsel. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee prayed for imposing cost on the Department. 3. Shri Shambhu Yadav ... Department. We direct the Department to pay cost Rs.10,000/- i.e. equivalent to the fee paid by the assessee for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The cost be paid in accordance with Rule 32A(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, within three months from the date

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1808/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1807/मुं/ 2022 एवं 1808/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2016-17 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)

Assessment Year 2013-14 the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected the claim of assessee. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.3004/Mum/2019. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act and the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

Dy CIT CC 2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1807/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1807/मुं/ 2022 एवं 1808/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2016-17 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)

Ken Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 4, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 894@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2010&11½ Ken Financial Services Ltd. 101, Shah Arcade, A Wing, Shah Archade Sra Chs Ltd Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E) Mumbai-400 097 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaack4929K Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Byomakesh P. K. Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

made addition in AY 2009-10. The CIT(A) vide order dated 24.10.2019 deleted the addition. The Department carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA no.7960/Mum/2019. However, appeal of the Revenue was dismissed vide order dated 08/6/2021 on account of low tax effect. 2.4. The ld. Counsel

ACIT Circle-3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Solitaire Appliances Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7559/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Dharod

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

upheld the disallowance of sectio disallowance of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved ggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as is in appeal before the Tribunal

Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 3 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5855/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Dharod

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Solitaire Appliances Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5587/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Dharod

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4387/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

deposited in bank. Agg secondly as cash deposited in bank. Aggrieved, with the additions rieved, with the additions sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 In the appeals before

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4386/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A