“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

Anand Prakash, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5712/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 68

Rs.20,78,500/- was made in the quantum proceedings. However, an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- approx. was only sustained in the second appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel submits that aforesaid amount of Rs.1,30,000/- represents interest on loan of Rs.10 lakh disallowed in Assessment Year

Anand Prakash, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5711/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 68

Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Ramoliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward -3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 342/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Income Tax Officer, Ramoliya, 33-134, Miranagar Ward-3(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Society, Varachha Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Abipr 3365 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 269SSection 68

evidence he is unable to allow part of expense and confirmed the order of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 13. We have heard the Ld.AR for the assessee and Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue and have gone through the orders

Shailendra, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The assessee has made following written submissions:- PAN: CAVPS9753D Reg.: Sh. Shailendra Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Village & Post - Chindauri Khas, Meerut Meerut ... scrutiny on that very issue of suspicious transactions. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 17.11.2016 and submitted that the inappropriate words

Dang Jilla Paragliding Adventure Association, Dang vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 35/SRT/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.35/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Dang Jilla Paragliding Adventure Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Association,O, Saputara, At & P.O. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan (Vejalpur), Nr. Talahwa,Dang-394720 Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandnnagar-Phrahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtd 9827 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu– CIT-DR

Section 12A

bona fide and sufficient reasons for delay that has occurred in ITA No35/SRT/2020 A.Y. 2019-20 Dang Jilla Paragliding Adventure Association filing present appeal before the Tribunal, which should be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer

Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5263/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

above facts, addition made by the AO u/s 14A at Rs.2,60,092/- is hereby confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Hearing was fixed on 12.01.2021, 13.07.2021, 22.09.2021, 28.12.2021, 29.03.2022, 22.06.2022, 16.11.2022 & 01.02.2023. None appeared for and / or on behalf of the assessee

Jatinder Kumar Suri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 6808/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 194JSection 44ASection 69C

appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee got part relief. Still dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Hearing was fixed for 24.03.2022; 08.06.2022; 31.08.2022; 14.11.2022; 15.11.2022 and 01.02.2023. None attended for the assessee on all the above dates. We, therefore, proceed ... recorded his findings in para 3.3 to 3.6 of his order which we have already extracted earlier. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The contention of the assessee as revealed from the grounds of appeal is that the impugned disallowance of loss has been made merely

Mufg Bank Ltd. (Earlier Known As the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufg Ltd.), Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1246/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 144C(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)

applying the rate of 43.26%, treating it as business income. The assessee contested the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer by filing appeal before the Tribunal. It was the say of the assessee before the Tribunal that as per Article 11(2) of the tax treaty, the interest received

Parveen Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Haryana

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

ITA 6886/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prem Rajpal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

basis of discrepancy noticed in the documents of the record and hence the same is confirmed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that during assessment and appellate proceedings all the requisite details

Prashant Kumar Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as dismissed

ITA 5293/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11 Prashant Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3) B-30, Yamunapuram, Bullandshahr. Bullandshahr Uttar Pradesh Pin: 203001 Pan Avpps5108R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)

appellant are not found to be maintainable and accordingly dismissed.” Prashant Kumar Singh vs ITO 4 7. Dissatisfied, the assesee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 8. It has come to the notice of the department that the assessee Shri Prashant Kumar

Maddimisetti Srinivasu, Tanuku vs. The Asst . Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundary

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

ITA 96/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Maddimsetti Srinivasu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-77, Peddintlamma Street Income Tax Tanuku Mandal Circle-1 Komaravaram Rajahmundry [Pan : Ctxpm3066Q]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(2)Section 48Section 54F

afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the consequential order. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is contrary to the facts and also

Gurubilli Venkata Durga Naga Prasad Rao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.264/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Gurubilli Venkata Durga Naga Vs. Income Tax Officer Prasad Rao Ward-1 D.No.70-2-181/4 Kakinada Guntamukkalavari Street Ramanaya Peta, Kakinada [Pan : Bfbpg6505B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1036569377(1) Dated 26.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Deriving Income From Salary, Income From Other Sources Apart From Agricultural Income, Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y.2017-18 On 25.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasad Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 3 I.T.A. No.264/Viz/2021, A.Y. 2017-18 Gurubilli Venkata Durga Naga Prasad Rao, Kakinada 1. The order

Palla Madhusudana Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 15/VIZ/2019[20011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Palla Madhusudana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Door No.14-6-7, Ramajogipeta Ward-1(2) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bhrpp0382F] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri N.Ravi Babu, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, [Cit(A)]-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10357/2018-19/A3 Cit(A)-6 Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Carrying On Business In The Sale Of Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2011-12 On 25.09.2011, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,28,950/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny, Accordingly

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.Ravi Babu, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249

case does not arise. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad, is contrary to Law and facts

DCIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Quant Capital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 423/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115JSection 254(1)Section 68

deleted the addition of Rs. 4.53 crores as well. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We have heard the submission of learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue and the learned

DCIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 422/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 254(1)Section 68

ITO Ward -26(1), New Delhi vs. Vg Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4901/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801D

allowed.” ITO vs. VG Properties Pvt. Ltd. 6 6. Dissatisfied by the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the six grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. DR placed reliance on para 4 of the Ld. AO’s order

Parveen Kumar Kapoor, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) relied upon by the assessee was distinguishable on facts. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee

Cj Darcl Logistics Limited, Haryana vs. Circle 7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 288/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234B

credit which is also correct as per discussion above relating to ground No.1.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal and Ground No. 1 relates thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue of inclusion of surcharge and education cess for calculation

DCIT Circle-1(1), Exemption, New Delhi vs. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for both the AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 1310/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Court (supra) held that the activities of the assessee are covered within the definition of charitable trust. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal in both the AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18. 8. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO who has stated

DCIT (Exem) Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Ernet India, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for both the AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 1309/DEL/2022[2016-1]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)