← 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

Vishnu Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

assessee submitted that against the order dated 10.11.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13, the assessee had gone in appeal before the Tribunal on the identical issue of GP addition and the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.04.2019 in ITA No. 357/Del/2017 deleted the GP addition

Sunbeam Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 235/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

valid return in the eye of law. The Revenue has accepted this decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and is not in appeal before the Tribunal on the validity or otherwise of the revised return. & ITA No.235/Del/17 Assessments of the past year(s) stand set aside by the decision (supra ... vast technical knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the payment made to a commission agent constitutes towards technical services.” 10.2 Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. At the very outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee has been paying commission to these two agents

Young Women'S Christian Association of Delhi, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Saten Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

under section 11 of the Act. 5. The assessee is aggrieved by the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is in appeal before the Tribunal. All the grounds of appeal of the assessee relate thereto. 6. At the very outset the Ld. AR submitted that ... assessee’s case. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR also support the contentions of the assessee raised in its appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Needless to say that Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5127/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

valid return in the eye of law. The Revenue has accepted this decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and is not in appeal before the Tribunal on the validity or otherwise of the revised return. & ITA No.235/Del/17 Assessments of the past year(s) stand set aside by the decision (supra ... vast technical knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the payment made to a commission agent constitutes towards technical services.” 10.2 Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. At the very outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee has been paying commission to these two agents

Sunbeam Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4378/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

valid return in the eye of law. The Revenue has accepted this decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and is not in appeal before the Tribunal on the validity or otherwise of the revised return. & ITA No.235/Del/17 Assessments of the past year(s) stand set aside by the decision (supra ... vast technical knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the payment made to a commission agent constitutes towards technical services.” 10.2 Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. At the very outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee has been paying commission to these two agents

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chandra Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

ITA 3205/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80I

additions and disallowances. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted all of them except sales tax penalty. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Following grounds of appeal have been taken :- “Point No. 1 Trading addition - profit from Baddi Unit (Rs. 25,60.525/-) On the facts and circumstances

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

ITA 325/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80I

additions and disallowances. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted all of them except sales tax penalty. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Following grounds of appeal have been taken :- “Point No. 1 Trading addition - profit from Baddi Unit (Rs. 25,60.525/-) On the facts and circumstances

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Subash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

ITA 3054/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80I

additions and disallowances. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted all of them except sales tax penalty. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Following grounds of appeal have been taken :- “Point No. 1 Trading addition - profit from Baddi Unit (Rs. 25,60.525/-) On the facts and circumstances

Picric Ltd vs. ITO Ward 14 (4)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with directions contained in para 22 above

ITA 4115/DEL/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80H

Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme amounting to Rs. 21,67,878/- in computing deduction under section 80HHC and both the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal relate thereto. 4. The facts relating to Ground No. 1 are that the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found from the bifurcated Trading, Profit ... action in excluding benefit under DEPB scheme in computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. On the issue of interest income on fixed deposits with the bank earned by the assessee in respect of ‘Basmati’ division for obtaining increased overdraft

Assissant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 258/SRT/2022[143(3)]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2023

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Nagar-3, Opp. B.R.C. Gate, Udhana, Surat – 394210. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F

Section 143(3)

which is less than the tax effect limit of Rs.50 lacs prescribed by the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 for filing of appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee prayed the Bench that the Revenue’s appeal may be dismissed. On the other hand

Nirmal Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9808/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 263

assessee submitted that this appeal is consequential to the order passed u/s 263 by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had filed appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.108/Del/2018, and the Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2021 has quashed the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. In this view

Jaykant Uttamchand Shah, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 276/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

Pr.CIT on 21/03/2017, however, the present appeal is filed by assessee on 27/09/2022. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The Registry of this office has calculated the delay of 1956 days in filing the appeal, before the Tribunal. 3. The notice of hearing

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2 Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

ITA 428/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA and Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 244A

dated 10 November 2005. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before me, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the written submission as under :- “ Interest on income tax refund is allowable under section 244A

Shiksha Vibhag Karmchari Sahkari Samiti Limited, Bundi vs. ITO, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/JPR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2023AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Podar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

confirmed the order of CPC vide order dated 11.05.2022. Therefore, the assessee has preferred this appeal before this tribunal. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee given his relevant findings on the issue, which reads as under:- 3 Shiksha vibhag Karmchari Sahkari Samiti ... therefore dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not find any favor from the order of the ld. CIT(A) they 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

The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Thrissur vs. Sri.T.G. Chandrakumar, Thrissur

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 67/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA
Section 132Section 153CSection 268A

assessee. While two sellers have accepted the same, the other two (P.M. Vijayan & A.A. Balachandran) have kept the matter alive by preferring second appeal before the Tribunal, whose order in the instant case, being represented, again, by Sh. Warrier, would equally apply thereto. The stand of the parties, as explained

Sh. Suresh Kumar Agarwal, B-9, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 115BSection 69A

partly on account of accumulated savings is also not substantiated. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The first ground of the appeal relates to confirming the addition under section 69A of the IT Act by treating the cash deposit

Rajasthan Para-Medical Council, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income (Exemption) Tax, Jaipur

ITA 331/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT) &
Section 12ASection 13Section 2(15)

affiliation etc., hence are treated as business receipts. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (E), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The grounds no. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related, therefore, these grounds are being disposed

Ashok Ghiya, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 274/JPR/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: The Tribunal. The 2 Shri Ashok Ghiya, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

immediately on the basis of opinion of Chartered Accountant the appeal papers were sent to his Counsel for preparation and filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The 2 Shri Ashok Ghiya, Jaipur. process of preparation and filing of appeal at the end of the Counsel took some time ... order, thus the burden of proof of explaining the nature and source of cash deposits remains un-discharged. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The solitary ground of the assessee is challenging the addition of Rs. 22,73,500/- as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account

Vipin Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2007-08 Sh. Vipin Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S. Mohan Santulit Ward-36(3), Pashu Aahar, 67-A, Dda New Delhi Flats, Ghazipur, Delhi Pan :Amxpk9748G (Appellant) (Respondent)

time. Thereafter, due to intervention of Covid-19, there was lockdown and ultimately when the assessee inquired about the status of the appeal before the Tribunal, the concerned Chartered Account searched for the documents and after retrieving the documents appeal was ultimately filed with the delay. In support

ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dj Energy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7893/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryacit Vs. Dj Energy Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 7(1) A-2, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi-110 065 Pan No. Aaccd 9286 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv. Revenue By Shri T. James Singson, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Acit Vs. Dj Energy Pvt. Ltd. 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Production, Collection & Distribution Of Electricity. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2016-17 On 16.10.2016 Declaring Loss Of Rs.134,14,17,821/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein The Total Loss Was Assessed At Rs.119,00,86,573/-.

Section 143(3)

order dated 19.07.2019 in Appeal No.3/10240/2018-19 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following effective ground : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. ACIT vs. DJ Energy Pvt. Ltd. 5 8. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO and further submitted that the documents shows that there