← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) held the reopening as invalid in law and also deleted the addition on merit. 7. Aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 8. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. M/S Tirupati Homes Ltd, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 71/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.70 & 71/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna M/S. Tirupati Homes Limited Ground Floor, Arvina Vs Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, Patna – 800001. Pan: Aadct 7444 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) – 3, Patna Dated 18.06.2020 & 19.06.2020 Respectively For A.Y. 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,35,06,630/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed/Misreporting Of Sale Of Flats, Accepting The Contention & Calculation Made By The Assessee In Which The Main Questionable Point Is Deduction Of Expense Of Rs.5,19,35,503/- On Account Of "Excess Provision Of Earlier Years Deducted'" To Complete The Substantially Completed Units. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Accepted This Contention Which Was Made For The First Time Before Him, Without Making Proper Verification & Verifying Corresponding Entry In The Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

where the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, revenue has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds of appeal. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. DR brought to our notice that various additional evidences were admitted

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. M/S Tirupati Homes Ltd, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 70/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.70 & 71/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna M/S. Tirupati Homes Limited Ground Floor, Arvina Vs Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, Patna – 800001. Pan: Aadct 7444 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) – 3, Patna Dated 18.06.2020 & 19.06.2020 Respectively For A.Y. 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,35,06,630/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed/Misreporting Of Sale Of Flats, Accepting The Contention & Calculation Made By The Assessee In Which The Main Questionable Point Is Deduction Of Expense Of Rs.5,19,35,503/- On Account Of "Excess Provision Of Earlier Years Deducted'" To Complete The Substantially Completed Units. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Accepted This Contention Which Was Made For The First Time Before Him, Without Making Proper Verification & Verifying Corresponding Entry In The Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

where the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, revenue has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds of appeal. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. DR brought to our notice that various additional evidences were admitted

Sulochana Saijan Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 557/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

amounting to Rs.57,85,300/-. Further, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages