← 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

Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 569/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

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

Pankaj K Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 566/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

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

DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj K Shah HUF, Mumbai

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

ITA 1614/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

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

Mohideen Gafoor, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 137/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N V Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

interest of Revenue and powers u/s.263 of the Act, with a direction to the AO to re-examine the issue. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Now, before us the ld.counsel for the assessee made submission that reassessment order or the assessment order passed by AO u/s.143

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Rathna Cafe, Chennai

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

ITA 14/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 14/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 The Dcit, M/S. Ratna Café, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. No.255, Triplicane High Road, Chennai. Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Pan: Aaafr 0842B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

affidavit stating the fact that the order passed by CIT(A) dated 27.08.2020 was received in the office of CIT on 06.10.2020 and appeal before the Tribunal was to be filed on or before 05.12.2020 but it was filed only on 28.01.2021 and thereby, there is a delay

Indian Co-Op Network for Women Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 104/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Adivarahan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

assessment order and directed the AO to reframe the assessment after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the issue in reassessment framed by AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. S.Periasamy Moopanar & Sons, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 372/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 372/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

course of survey, unaccounted purchases added u/s. 69C of the Act, and gross profit on unaccounted sales. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and challenged deletion of additions made by the AO. The ITAT, vide their order dated 15.05.2013 in ITA No. 1580/Mds/2012 set aside

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3391/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

ground to allow the change in method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and not accounting the income. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstance of the case. The assessee is a sugar manufacturer and entitled ... adopted by the assessee and making addition of Rs.1,55,30,000/- as under valuation of closing stock of inventories. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee in its notes

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3390/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

ground to allow the change in method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and not accounting the income. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstance of the case. The assessee is a sugar manufacturer and entitled ... adopted by the assessee and making addition of Rs.1,55,30,000/- as under valuation of closing stock of inventories. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee in its notes

Sabesan Parameswaran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

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

ITA 2060/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2060/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015 - 16 Dr. Sabesan Parameswaran, The Acit, New No.6, Old No.30, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle-2, Second Street, East Chennai Abhiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Amipp 9152G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.R. Venkatachalam, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Venkatachalam, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

proportionate share of 2/3rd is to be assessed as long term capital gain and assessed by AO rightfully. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the PoA dated 19.02.2015 given

Subahan Abdul Majzeeth, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3337/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3337/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015 - 16 Shri Subahan Abdul The Income Tax Officer, Majzeeth, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 10(1), F1, Prp Block-Rose Park, Chennai. No.10, Santhi Nagar, 1St Cross, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088. Pan: Agmpa 9389E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sathyanarayanan,Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai In Ita No.26/Cit(A)-12/2017-18 Dated 28.09.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Ito, Non-Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 02.11.2017. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Barred By Limitation By 1 Day & The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating The Reason That Due To Time Involved In Collecting The Papers From Assessee’S Chartered Accountant & To Hand Over The Same To His Advocate, There Was A Delay Of One Day In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. When This Was Confronted To Ld.Senior Dr, He Could Not Object. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathyanarayanan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 69

chartered accountant and to hand over the same to his advocate, there was a delay of one day in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal. When this was confronted to ld.Senior DR, he could not object. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue ... assessment assessing the difference of Rs.29,05,644/- as unexplained investments under section 69 of the IT Act.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have examined the documents filed by the assessee

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 985/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, ARFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI though belated, but was before the due date of fling the return of income

M/S Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 3 [1], Chennai

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 353/Chny/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tamilnadu State The Acit, Marketing Corporation Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Cmda Tower, Ii, Iv Floor, Chennai. Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaact 2964P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-3 In Revision No.Pcit, Chennai-3/Revision-263/100000339483/2022 Dated 31.03.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Revision Order Passed By Pcit By Holding The Assessment Framed As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On Account Of Value Added Tax Paid By Assessee & Claimed As Deduction U/S.37 R.W.S. 43B Of The Act & Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

examine the issue in detail and complete the assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted the fact that the assessee is a Government of TamilNadu undertaking incorporated

Deputy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 92Section 92F

Ports Ltd., the assessment was made in case of Essar Ports Ltd. up to 30/09/2010. For the similar disallowance, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 26/06/2019 for the A.Y. 2011-12, deleted the similar addition so made by the A.O. after

I Maritime Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-15(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 401/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.401/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) I Maritime Ito-15(2) (1) Mumbai. Consultancy P. Ltd 11B 114, We Work 10Th Floor, Mumbai. Tower 1,Seawoods Grand 11B 114, We Work 10Th बिधम/ Central, Sector 40, Nerul, Floor, Tower 1, Seawoods Vs. Mumbai Maharashtra. Grand Central, Sector 40, 400706 Nerul, Mumbai 400706 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaac17284B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Jayant Bhatt प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Manoj Sinha (Sr Ar) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Date 04.02.2019 Passed By The Cit (Appeals), 24 Mumbai, In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1) (C) For The Ay 2013-2014. The Assessee Has Challenged The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs. 4,50,000/-

For Appellant: Shri. Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha (SR AR)
Section 250Section 271(1)

filed. It was only when notice of demand was issued; he contacted a chartered accountant who advised him to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Though, the aforesaid reason may not be sufficient cause for such huge delay, however, in the interest of substantial justice and looking to the fact

M/S. Gita Refractories Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 81/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Through ground Nos. 2 & 3, of the main grounds the assessee is contending the legal issue pertaining to the reopening of the assessment

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

appeal of the assessee. 3 M/s.United Breweries Limited. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds:- 1. Grounds relating to Depreciation on Goodwill: 1.1 The learned CIT{A) erred in confirming the action ... Corporation Ltd (76 taxmann.com 360) and has upheld the addition of 14A disallowance to the book profits. 15.1 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v Gokaldas Images

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Assessee by the CIT(A), both the assessee (IT(TP)A No.2834/Bang/2017) and the Revenue (IT(TP)A No.134/Bang/2017) are in appeals before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.2834/Bang/2017 (Assessee’s appeal) 6. The assessee in the memorandum of appeal has raised 9 grounds and several sub-grounds pertaining ... 134/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 37 year 2009-10 and 2010-11. The DRP confirmed the TPO’s order. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld.AR submitted that under the technical and marketing support services segment, the Assessee does not render any services in the nature

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commisssioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2834/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Assessee by the CIT(A), both the assessee (IT(TP)A No.2834/Bang/2017) and the Revenue (IT(TP)A No.134/Bang/2017) are in appeals before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.2834/Bang/2017 (Assessee’s appeal) 6. The assessee in the memorandum of appeal has raised 9 grounds and several sub-grounds pertaining ... 134/Bang/2018 Page 11 of 37 year 2009-10 and 2010-11. The DRP confirmed the TPO’s order. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld.AR submitted that under the technical and marketing support services segment, the Assessee does not render any services in the nature

Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 642/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Nos.641 & 642/Bang/2016 Page 10 of 54 year 2009-10. The DRP confirmed the TPO’s order. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld.AR submitted that under the technical and marketing support services segment, the Assessee does not render any services in the nature of ITES ... incurred towards warranty expenditure for which evidence was submitted by the Assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 24. The ld. AR made detailed written submission in this regard the extract of which is given below (i) The assessee has a scientific method of creating the provision