“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

wherein it was held that when there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made u/s. 14A. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. DR supported the order of the AO and contended that the explanation inserted to section 14A is clarificatory in nature ... that highly skilled Technology services were rendered by the manpower to the Appellant is incorrect.” 16. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 17. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The ground under which the AO is contending that TDS provisions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

Smt.Adithyapan Amutha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 74/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

that this appeal is barred by limitation by 765 days. The order appealed against was communicated to the assessee on 19.12.2018 and the appeal before the Tribunal was filed only on 23.03.2021. The assessee filed condonation petition supported by affidavit stating that although the order of CIT(A) dated

M/S. Podar Literacy Education Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1630/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal.

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 132Section 143(3)

treat the depreciation amount as application of income. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has purchased some of the assets by utilising loans and hence it cannot be said that

Shivaji S Desai, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)4, Mumbai

In the result, the assessment order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2272/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthy: A.Y : 2009-10 Shivaji S. Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer – 22(3)(4), Sagar Darshan Chs, Tower No. 2, Mumbai. (Respondent) Flat No. 1001, 10Th Floor, Sector-18, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) Pan : Affpd3240K Appellant By : Shri Prakash Pandit Respondent By : Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary & Shri Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary &

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee on the said address. The assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to said notice. 4.1 During pendency of appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee filed an application under Right to Information Act seeking following information from the Assessing Officer: (i) Copy of notice under Section

Biocon Biologics Limited (Formerly Known As Biocon Biologics India Limited) (Successor to Biocon Research Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 299/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Biocon Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Biologics India Limited) Bengaluru. Ground Floor, Tower 3, Semicon Park, Hosur Road, Electronics City S.O. Bangalore South – 560 100. Pan : Aagcb7796M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee, Namely, Biocon Biologics Limited [Successor. To Biocon Research Limited With Appointed Date 01.04.2019] Is Engaged In The Carrying Out Research & Development ("R & D") Of Drugs & Drug Delivery Systems. For The Relevant Assessment Year ("Ay") 2017-18, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2017, Declaring `Nil’ Income Under The Normal Provisions Of The I.T.Act & Book Losses As 2 It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022. M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited Per The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Of The I.T.Act. After Considering The Taxes Deducted At Source, The Assessee Had Claimed Refund Of Inr 4,68,29,020 In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

No.299/Bang/2022. M/s.Biocon Biologics Limited 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising following grounds:- “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Biocon Biologics Limited (Formerly known as Biocon Biologics India Limited) [Successor to Biocon Research

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

made by the AO. The AO passed the final order pursuant to the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee raised grounds relating to the following issues i. Ground Nos.1 & 2 - General ii. Ground Nos.3 to 10 - Transfer Pricing issues ... before the DRP. Consequent to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that 3 companies viz., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd. and Infosys Ltd. were

Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 10(c) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt.Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288ASection 37Section 92C

Rounded u/s 288A to 3,07,94,750 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising following grounds:- “1. The order of the learned AO pursuant to the directions of the Honorable DRP, erred in assessing the total income

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

fees. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who upheld the addition/disallowance made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(Appeals). 5. There is a delay of 355 days i.e., 293 days upto the date ... Kerala High Court in the case of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialties India P. Ltd., 96 taxmann.com 43. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the AO has relied on a statement recorded during the survey proceedings of UKN Properties

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

Court in the case of Tejas Page 4 of 67 Networks Ltd. v. DCIT, [2015] 60 taxmann.com 309. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench ... justified in disallowing the provision for doubtful debts in each assessment year. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue preferred appeal to the Tribunal, which has confirmed the said order. However, the Tribunal held that it is not made Page 9 of 67 mandatory that the write

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (Pvt) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1345/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 7

05/07/2019. However, due to some inadvertent oversight on his part, he failed to inform the same to the Chartered Accountant to file the appeal before the Tribunal. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative („learned AR‟) submitted that due to the proceedings before the Hon‟ble National Company

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (Pvt) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1344/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 7

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 464/BANG/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)

been rejected by the AO so as to estimate the income of the assessee. On earlier occasion, the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No.858/Bang/2010, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.5.2016 remitted the issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration relating to rejection of books ... According to the AO, the wastage claimed by assessee in this assessment year is very high. On this reason, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO for reconsideration with the following observations:- “It can be seen that the latter statement

Sabari Foundations P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 2744/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:2744/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2010 - 2011

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Hence, relying on the above decisions, re-opening of assessment u/s.147 is upheld and the grounds dismissed.” Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Counsel for the Assessee first of all narrated the reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s.148

M/S. Raga vs. Diagnostic & Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Gowthama, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 69C

attracted and the AO has rightly taxed the amount of Rs.53,85,000 u/s. 115BBEE. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities with respect to offering additional income of Rs.53

R V Deshpande HUF, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

prejudicial to the interest of Revenue u/s 263 of IT Act.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 7 of 20 5. The ld. AR submitted that during the course of hearing, the assessee has submitted the computation of capital gains along with the details

Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 175/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

draft assessment order by stating that the DRP has confirmed the addition made by the TPO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of the AO which according to the assessee is not in accordance with the directions of the DRP. 7. During the course

Devappa Muniraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 981/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 234BSection 48Section 54B

such the same is liable to set aside.” Page 3 of 11 3. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the delay was due to the reason that the assessee was indisposed and hence could not file the appeal ... Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who confirmed the order of the AO, against which the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We will first consider the addition/disallowance made towards long term capital gains. The AO made the following disallowances on the basis that

M/S. Reddy Structures (Private) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1305/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 5 of 8 7. Before us the ld AR made written submissions in support of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) the relevant extract which

M/S.Mgn Agro Properties Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Mumbai-2, Mumbai

ITA 746/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254Section 263

additions except addition of Rs.1.66 crore under section 14A read with rule 8D vide order dated 04.08.2011. 10. Assessee then preferred appeal before the Tribunal which has restricted the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 14(A) to Rs.24,77,461/- vide ... bars the power of Ld. PCIT for invoking jurisdiction in respect of the matter which had been considered and decided in such appeals by the Tribunal; that assessee has duly furnished computation of income under the normal provisions as well as under provisions contained under section 115JB