← 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

Alliance Steel, Kollam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

ITA 194/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri N.S.Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Sri Prasanth V.K, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 263

No.194/Coch/2021. Alliance Steel 5. Aggrieved by the Commissioner of Income tax’s order u/s. 263 dated 11.05.2020, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income tax is against facts, law and circumstances of the case

Ebixcash Ltd., Noida vs. Circle 5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 681/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargebixcash Ltd. Vs. Circle – 5(1)(1) Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Gautam Budh Nagar Phase-Ii, Noida Pan No. Aaace 9981 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri T. James Singson, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Noida Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

order and pass fresh assessment order. Aggrieved by the order of PCIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds:- “1. That order dated 23.03.2022 u/s 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income

Sorav Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3571/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mukul Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

however adjudicated the issue adverse to assessee without giving any findings on the issue. 5. Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of alleged unexplained cash in the custody of the assessee. In the matter, we take

Ashvin Narayan Bajoria HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 369/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concealed his particulars of income upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submissions of learned Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental-Representative

Gopu Neelima, Nndigam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 173/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

raised by the assessee for Rs. 4,44,130/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in her appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary

Parsben Jivanbhai Vadhiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 47/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Parasben Jivanbhai Vadhiya Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Village Budhaleshwar, Tal. Income-Tax, Circle-(3), Vs Mahuva, Surat-394250 Surat Pan No: Apvpv 0109 F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 25.01.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 06.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,54,500/- U/S 270A Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Parasben J. Vadhiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Although Assessee Sought Adjournment Upto 12/01/2023. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274Section 43B

vide order dated 05.01.2023. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr DR) for the Revenue

Vikas Dugar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen Circle-2 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Actual Hearing Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Sha (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

Central Circle-02, Jaipur 7. As the assessee did not find any favor from the finding of the ld. CIT(A) preferred an appeal before the tribunal on the grounds as taken in appeal memo and reproduced at para 2 above. 8. In support of the grounds so raised

Credai Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(5), Jaipur

ITA 1/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 80G

appellant and therefore, this addition made by the AO is sustained.” 5. As the assessee did not get the relief has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds as reproduced in para 2 above. To support the grounds so raised the ld. AR of the assessee submitted their

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

levy of penalty by the AO was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred this appeal before the tribunal challenging the levy of penalty on the grounds as raised in para 2 above. 5. To support the various grounds so raised

Asha Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 22/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

confirmed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and also confirmed the entire addition summarily. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. In Ground no. 1 the assessee has challenged confirming the order of the AO and validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section

Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(3), Jaipur

ITA 8/JPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

confirmed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and also confirmed the entire addition summarily. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. In Ground no. 1 the assessee has challenged confirming the order of the AO and validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section

Shri Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dausa

ITA 27/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

confirmed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and also confirmed the entire addition summarily. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. In Ground no. 1 the assessee has challenged confirming the order of the AO and validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section

Smt. Saroj Dhaka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Jaipur

ITA 1345/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

confirmed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and also confirmed the entire addition summarily. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. In Ground no. 1 the assessee has challenged confirming the order of the AO and validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section

Shri Kailash Chand Gehlot, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3) Jaipur

ITA 1279/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

confirmed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and also confirmed the entire addition summarily. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. In Ground no. 1 the assessee has challenged confirming the order of the AO and validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section

Shri Shrinivas Tripathi, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 471/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

confirmed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and also confirmed the entire addition summarily. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. In Ground no. 1 the assessee has challenged confirming the order of the AO and validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section

Shri Arvind Kumar Sengwa, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Ajmer

ITA 1123/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250

confirmed the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and also confirmed the entire addition summarily. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. In Ground no. 1 the assessee has challenged confirming the order of the AO and validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section

Genpact Consulting (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Earlier Known As"Headstrong Consulting (Singapore) Pte. Ltd), Gurugram vs. ACIT Cirlce 2(1)(1) International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 476/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumar, Accountant Membr Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 263

evident, against the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. While deciding assessee’s appeal, being ITA No.501/Del/2021, the Tribunal in order dated 13.06.2022 has set aside the order under Section 263 of the Act and restored the assessment

M/S Brmsco Garments Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. ITO Corporate Ward -1, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 877/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Brmsco Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer V/103A Onakkur, Pampakuda Corporate Ward -1 Anchalpetty P.O. Kochi Ernakulam 686667 Pan – Aadcb2001L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shijoy K.G., FCAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. reported in 378 ITR 443 decided the issue against the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned A.R. relied on the grounds raised. 6. The learned D.R., on the other hand, submitted that the issue is covered

M/S Ben Rubbers, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Aluva

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

ITA 875/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Ben Rubbers Vs The Income Tax Officer Cheenikuzhi Ward - 1 North Mazhuvannur R.S. Road, Aluva 683101 Ernakulam Dist. 686689 Pan – Aagfb6859G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pratheesh Paul M., Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. There Is A Delay Of 9 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition For Condonation We Find That The Delay Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off This Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Pratheesh Paul M., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

raised in the grounds of appeal before him. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee is not computer literate and missed the mails sent by the CIT(A) for filing written

The ITO, Ward-1, Palakkad vs. M/S. Snofield Foods Private Limited, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 837/COCH/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.The Income Tax Officer -1 Vs M/S. Snofield Foods Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Door No. V/623B, Marutharode English Church Road Village, Kuppayode Road Palakkad 678014 Marutharode, Palakkad 678007 Pan – Aafcs3164B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veermani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.06.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2006-07. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By Assessing Officer U/S 41(1), Has Not Gone Into The Merits Of The Issue Simply Relying On The Fact That The Similar Issue Is Already Decided In Favour Of The Assessee In The Case Of Sister Concerns. 2) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Not Taken Into Consideration That The Assessee Should Have Credited Percentage Of Deduction Of The Freezer Deposit Every

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veermani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

result, both appeals are allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. At the very outset the learned A.R. submitted that the issue raised in the appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order