“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

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 655/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are time barred by 277 days delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. By filing condonation petition in support of an affidavit, the assessee has explained as under: 2 I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/19 That I, the above named petitioner, am well conversant with ... above submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief fact of the case are that the case

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 654/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

D Saivenugopal, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 386/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.386/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 11, Old No. 5, Sami Chetty Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 18.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Trading In Broilers (Md Of M/S. Saraswathi Broiler P. Ltd. & Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 On 17.05.2014 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.12,09,160/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 44A

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271A of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as the claim made by the assessee for presumptive taxation

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Venture Lighting India Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 3171/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viia)

accepted the explanation of the assessee and deleted the disallowance of commission of Rs.23,21,665/-. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee before CIT(A) submitted ... Companies Act and necessary Form 23 before ROC on 20.04.2011 itself. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld. Senior DR first narrated the facts that during the year, the assessee company bought its own share from

K. Ramalingam, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-I(3), Salem

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

ITA 2916/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

against charging / enhancing the interest under these provisions, but the CIT(A) confirming charging of interest. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the assessee contended that in levy of interest u/s.234A of the Act is compensatory in nature for delay in remittance of taxes

G.Prasanna Venkatesan, Coimbatore vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 2(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1973/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 45(3)Section 45(5)Section 68

gains on transfer. In these circumstances, the grounds raised by the appellant to delete the additions are dismissed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Now before us, apart from raising various grounds, assessee’s only submission was that the gold loan account and advance received from

Kunal Golecha, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 3(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3139/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3139/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kunal Golecha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 8, Harrington Road, Non Corporate Ward 3(4), 16Th Avenue, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aiqpg2506H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 23.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Service Of Notice (Ad On Record) Or Filed Any Adjournment Petition. Hence, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

notice to the assessee to rectify the defect by filing affidavit and petition for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not rectified the defect notified by the Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee

DDIT, Chennai vs. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational and Charitable Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 970/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 970/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Director Of Income- M/S. Sri Vekkaliamman Tax (Exemptions)-Ii, V. Educational & Charitable Trust, Chennai – 34. No. 108, East Madha Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013. [Pan: Aafts-7863-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Seetharaman, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Seetharaman, CA

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

thus, is entitled to exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A) order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. DR, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there is no violation as referred

ITO, Chennai vs. C.Krishnamurthy, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/CHNY/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1166/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate

appeal filed by the assessee and deleted addition made towards disallowance of bad debt written off. The Revenue carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The ITAT, Chennai Benches in dated 05.06.2015 allowed appeal filed by the Revenue and sustained addition made towards disallowance of bad debts

Sheetal Clothing Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Bombay High Court in yet another case of Gurinder Singh Bawa (2017)(70 taxmann.com 398) as under:- “5. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee interalia challenged the validity of the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act. This on account of the fact that no assessment

Sheetal Clothing Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1108/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Manju Baheti, Kolkata vs. AO, Ward 37(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 69A

impugned assessment order. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who confirmed the addition against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Shri R. Chowdhury, FCA, represented the assessee, who placed a paper book on record, containing 58 pages. Ld. Counsel

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 305/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who confirmed the penalty so imposed. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the sole issue required to be adjudicated upon is whether the additional income disclosed in the return filed in response

Rocksalt Interactive Games Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 263Section 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

legal position and provisions of Act as mentioned above.” 4. Aggrieved by the order u/s. 263 of PCIT/CIT-3, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : 5 “1. The order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Income

Dy.CIT Circle 2(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Hariomkar Food Products Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1154/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle-2(1)(1) Hariomkar Food Products Private Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 207 Shyam Kamal Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 32A

appeal before the ld. CIT(A), as against the assessment order who allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. It is observed that the assessee has claimed an investment allowance u/s.32AC

M/S. Silicon Estates, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 24/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 292BSection 80I

levying interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld AR submitted that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2012 i.e. within the due date for filing the return of income

Sandoz P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2005-06

ITA 3871/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal, such a challenge has been raised vide application dated 12/10/2021, and thus there is a delay in raising the additional grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. On the contrary, the assessee in its application submitted that the additional grounds raised are the pure questions of law and the failure