“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

Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2738/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the ITAT, vide its order dated 30.7.2012, restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine

Sandeep Dhingra, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, Delhi

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

ITA 764/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Sandeep Dhingra Vs. Acit, B-163, Amar Colony, Central Circle-26, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024 Pan Afnpd6143D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68Section 69

made by the Ld. AO were not correct. 8. Aggrieved with the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that during assessment proceedings

Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 189/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh, I.T.O., A-13, Aalekh Co-Operative Society, Near Ward-1(4)(6), Vs. N.K. Petroleum, Zadeshwar, Bharuch. Bharuch-392011. Pan No. Akfpp 3523 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is delay of 213 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The application is supported by affidavit of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits ... assessee enquired from him in the month of February, 2023. On coming to know about dismissal of appeal, the assessee immediately filed appeal before the Tribunal. The 2 Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh Vs ITO ld. AR of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) rejected/dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution

Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 267/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria, A.C.I.T., 8, Raghuvir Bunglow, City Light Road, Central Circle-3, Vs. Parle Point, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Abapa 6910 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

held that such expenses were incurred for earning exempt income claimed by assessee. Further aggrieved, the assesse has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has raised a ground against the validity of reopening, which goes to the root

Tranztar Commercial Vehicle Applications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6624/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

which the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The Ld.DRP reduced the TP adjustment to Rs.29,10,942/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. Before the Tribunal, the assessee raised various grounds

Dhankot Filling Station, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

directed the Assessing Officer to re-frame the order in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 26.3.2014 (Annexure A-III) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee was not liable

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tikonainfinet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4658/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 37(1)Section 41(1)

SOT151 (Ahmedabad) and several other cases of ITAT Mumbai in the cases of Bharti Airtel Ltd.” 3.2 Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO and drew our attention to para 5.1 (pages

M/S. Todarmull Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

upheld the findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR before us submitted that the accounts of the assessee company were got audited in the Companies Act on 21.08.2015, however, there

Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, National Informatics Center, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

back an amount of Rs. 24,94,76,749/- to the income of the assessee. 3. Against the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee before us submitted that the AO has erred in proposing an adjustment

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra, Gariyaband vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 19/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

upheld the findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR before us submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim

M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Durg vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai

In the result ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.66/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) M/S Bec Infra Private Limited, Vs Circle-3(1), Raipur 47, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg Pan No. :Aagcm 0049 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 31.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, Which Can Be Further Extended Since The Claim Of The Assessee That The Order Was Served After 38 Days Of Delay Was Not Supported By Any Documentary Evidence. As Per Appeal Memo In Form No.36, The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order Was 7Th February, 2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 08.06.2020. On This Aspect, The Ld. Ar Submitted That This Was The Covid-19 Period & The Hon’Ble Apex Court Has Already Directed To Extend The Limitation For That Period, Therefore, The Delay May Be Condoned. The Submission Of The Ld. Ar Found Satisfactory & Acceptable & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 14A

upheld the findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ground No.1, 4 & 5 are general and academic in nature, hence, needs no separate adjudication. 8. Ground No.2 is with regard to disallowance of Rs.2

Shri Pratap Nayak, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3), Bhilai

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

ITA 15/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

upheld the findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.CIT(A). 5. Ld. AR before us submitted that the revenue authorities have grossly erred in appreciating the facts

ADIT (I.T)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. the Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 651/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.6818/मुं/2006 ("न.व. 2002-03) The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(2), Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं.651/मुं/2007 ("न.व. 2002-03) Adit(It)-3(2),Mumbai R. No.132, 1St Floor, N.M.Road, Mumbai – 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Bank Of Nova Scotia, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaacb-1536-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 44C

assessment year 1997-98 identical disallowance was made by Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) deleted the same, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.306/Mum/2001. The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 21/04/2004 dismissed the ground raised in the appeal of Revenue by observing

M/S. the Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 3(20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6818/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2002-2003

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 44C

Muriwala Agrotech Private Limited, Rajasthan vs. DCIT Circle-14, Delhi

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

ITA 608/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Shushil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan, Meena, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)

Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya and another, 118 ITR 461. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour

Savita Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8937/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajareswari R, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54FSection 68

before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however confirmed the imposition of penalty. 5. Aggrieved by the denial of relief, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions. I.T.A No.8937/Del/2019 3 7. Multiple objections have been raised on behalf of the assessee to assail

Capital Transformers P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1397/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250(4)Section 40

evidences. Having done so, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A No.1397/Del/2019 3 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions. The assessee contends that the additional evidences placed before the CIT(A) are in the nature

Meka Ranganayakamma, Gosala vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 39/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.39/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Meka Ranganayakamma Vs. Income Tax Officer Gosala, Penamaluru Mandal Ward-2(4) Krishna District Vijayawada [Pan : Bfjpm1961H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Vijayawada Vide Appeal No.10293/Cit(A)/Vja/18-19 Dated 23.07.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 With The Inordinate Delay Of 898 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That The Assessee Fell Down While Climbing Down The Stair Case On 15.09.2019, Suffered From Severe Back Pain & She Was Advised Bed Rest Till 14.12.2019. As The Assessee Did Not Recover, She Continued To Be Confined

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

assessee realised that she did not file appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and took necessary steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal on 07.03.2022. The assessee further submitted that the reasons explained were beyond the control of the assessee, which is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore

Balajee Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 238/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246Section 250

order. 2. At the outset, it is noted from the record that there is a delay of 16 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeals, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] drawn our attention to the petition filed ... view, this is a fit case for condoning the delay and hence we hereby condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are identical

Balajee Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 237/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246Section 250