“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

Global Edge Software Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalroe

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

ITA 424/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri.C.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Add.CIT-DR

order dated 10.06.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017. 2. There is a delay of 1019 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. By excluding the period of limitation due to Covid-19 pandemic (in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment dated 10.01.2022 in MA 21/2022 ... matters in the month of April 2022, the new management identified that the assessee-company had inadvertently missed filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Immediately on knowing the status of the appellate order, the assessee after consulting a senior professional, filed the present

Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

passed the final assessment order in pursuant to the DRP directions incorporating the revised TP adjustment. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A Nos.27/BANG/2020 & 194/BANG/2021 Page 8 of 31 12. During the course of hearing, out of the exclusions sought through Ground no.5

M/S. Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 27/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 126/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri, K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 43B

filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who gave partial relief to the assessee in terms disallowance made u/s.14A. The assessee is in appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(Appeals). Ground no.1 and 2 are general and Ground no.10 is consequential. Hence these grounds ... Foreign royalty – Rs.13,43,290 48. The CIT(Appeals) gave partial relief to the assessee and the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with respect to the following issues i. Depreciation on goodwill – Rs.4,98,51,450 ii. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) – Rs.7,65,43,034 iii. Disallowance u/s.43B

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 12, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 125/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri, K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 43B

Sadras Venkatarama Chetty Charities, Chennai vs. ITO ( Exemptions ) Ward - 2, Chennai

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

ITA 544/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 544/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Sadras Venkatarama Chetty Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer No. 1, Audiappa Naicken Street, (Exemptions), Ward – 2, George Town, Chennai 600 001. Aayakar Bhavan, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabas2781C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 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) – National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], New Delhi, Dated 18.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Sadras Venkatarama Chetty Charities Filed The Return Of Income On 05.11.2015 In Itr-7 Declaring An Income Of Nil After Claiming Deduction Under Section 11 Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 264

delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case

Nsr Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 420/CHNY/2021[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved against approval by PCIT from 23.09.2021 instead of granting approval from 01.04.2021, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee referred to first proviso to clause (iv) to section 80G(5) which reads as under:- “Provided that

M.N.Rangamani, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 21/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.21/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri M.N. Rangamani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 94, First Avenue, Defence Officers Corporate Ward 2(1), Colony, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaepr5701M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N.Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 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) 5, Chennai Dated 14.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of ₹.37,15,836/- Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri M.N.Rangamani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 282 days in filing 2 I.T.A. No. 21/Chny/21 the appeal before the Tribunal due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that ... under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and submitted that in this case, the assessee has taken investment which yield exempt income for numerator for the purpose of determination

Sb Industrial Engineering Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 861/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Shanmugam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the additions made on the share premium u/s.56

Raghava Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 434/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 431, 432, 433 & 434/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5, Nimmo Road, Santhome, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle Iii(4)/ Chennai 600 005. Corporate Circle 3(2) [Pan:Aafpr6559N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

appeals in I.T.A. No. 431 & 432/Chny/2019 of the assessee are filed with a delay of 996 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly, ITA No. 433/Chny/2019 was filed with a delay of 2 I.T.A. Nos.431-434/Chny/19 783 days and ITA No. 434/Chny/2016 was filed with a delay ... assessee were removed by other Directors out of vengeance for which a police complaint was filed. Even for the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, the assessee has stated that there is investigation by CB-CID wing of the Tamil Nadu Police Department for the same reason

Raghava Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 433/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Raghava Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 432/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Raghava Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 431/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

DCIT Corporate Circle-2, Madurai vs. Standard Press India Pvt Ltd, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 1618/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

Even sales to M/s.Vimala Paper Co.Ltd., referred to in para 4.3 were fully included in the total T/o.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT argued on behalf of Revenue and relied on the assessment order. He stated that the assessee

Rangachari Surendhiran, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Salem

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

ITA 1314/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

Assessing Officer in the assessment order, this ground of appeal is partly allowed to the extent discussed supra. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The only argument of assessee's counsel is that once the assessee has declared income u/s.44AD of the Act, no further addition

Devaraj Construction, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Madurai

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

ITA 1061/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1061/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Devaraj Construction, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Karisalpatti, Karumatthur Post, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 625 514. [Pan:Aadfd1225F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 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) 2 (I/C), Madurai Dated 28.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Time Barred By 407 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, Wherein, The Assessee Has Stated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT

relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee was time barred by 407 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In support of an affidavit, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein, the assessee

P Prabhu, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3388/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3388/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri P. Prabhu, The Assistant Commissioner Of 29/C-2, Venkat Rathna Manor, Vs. Income Tax, Race Course, Coimbatore 641 018. Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aivpp2632E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

made. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On an earlier occasion also when the 3 I.T.A. No.3388/Chny/18 appeal was taken

Jayaramaraja Jayakrishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

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

ITA 2725/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2725/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Jayaramaraja Jayakrishnan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 19, Vellayan Road, Kotturpuram, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 1, Wanaparthy Block, 3Rd Floor, Chennai 600 085. 121 M G Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Afepj6822J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri P. Hari, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 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) 2, Chennai, Dated 01.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Film Distribution. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Along With Others Entered Into A Development Agreement On 06.10.2011 With M/S. Casa Grande Private Ltd. For Construction Of A 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl. CIT

Section 194C

payment is not genuine payment. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has offered an amount of Rs.4.62 crores as profit

Sri Santhosh Nagesh Jannu, Raichur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

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

ITA 824/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 144Section 234Section 69B

decided the appeal ex parte. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR 5 Sri Santosh Nagesh Jannu. submitted that the assessee carries on business in a small rural town and he was totally unaware

Grasim Industries Ltd.(As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 216/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

satisfied on the facts of this case. Just because an assessee has raised a claim by way of an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal, it does not necessarily mean that the delay is attributable to the assessee-this delayed claim could be on account of subsequent legislative