← 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

Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

ground by which the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make assessment is challenged can be allowed to be taken in an appeal before the Tribunal even though such a ground was not taken before the Income-tax Assessment Year: 2003-04 Page 5 of 8 Officer ... assessed the wealth of the deceased in the hands of the executor. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment order. On appeal to the Tribunal, a new ground was taken for the first time that section 19A was introduced in the Wealth-tax Act with effect from April

Kalpesh Ramniklal Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Intl Tax Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

ground by which the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make assessment is challenged can be allowed to be taken in an appeal before the Tribunal even though such a ground was not taken before the Income-tax Assessment Year: 2004-05 Page 5 of 8 Officer ... assessed the wealth of the deceased in the hands of the executor. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment order. On appeal to the Tribunal, a new ground was taken for the first time that section 19A was introduced in the Wealth-tax Act with effect from April

Kalpesh Rashmikant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO It, Circle- 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

ground by which the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make assessment is challenged can be allowed to be taken in an appeal before the Tribunal even though such a ground was not taken before the Income-tax Assessment Year: 2003-04 Page 5 of 8 Officer ... assessed the wealth of the deceased in the hands of the executor. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment order. On appeal to the Tribunal, a new ground was taken for the first time that section 19A was introduced in the Wealth-tax Act with effect from April

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Kalyanji Velji HUF, Mumbai

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

ITA 2337/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Cent. Circle-8(4), M/S Kalyanji Velji Huf Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Plot No. 368, Vishrani Niwas, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Bhandarkar Road, Matunga C.R. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaahk 1097 D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 48

Supreme Court wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the limitation for instituting extended the limitation for instituting suit or proceeding proceedings including appeal before the Tribunal till 3 appeal before the Tribunal till 3rd October 2021 and therefore there October 2021 and therefore there is no delay in filing ... annulled the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer. reassessment made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 Despite notifying none appeared on behalf of the assessee and Despite notifying none appeared on behalf of the assessee

M/S. Burlington Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1294/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

M/S. Burlington Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1268/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

M/S. Burlington Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1266/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

M/S. Bazigar Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1196/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

M/S. Bazigar Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1195/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

M/S. Bazigar Trading P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1039/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

Sri. Ranganathagiri, Bhadravathi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cirlce, 1, Shimoga

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

ITA 560/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms.Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 43BSection 68

I.T.Act, by the A.O. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) is not correct in stating that there is no response to the notices issued dated 02.06.2022. It was submitted

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Raichur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubali

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

ITA 365/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

accordance with law.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 171 pages enclosing therein the case laws relied on, notices issued

Atos It Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 226/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(2)Section 92C

passed the final order of assessment as per the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Transfer Pricing adjustment 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee had the following international transactions:- Description Amount (INR) Provision of Software Development Service ... No.226/Bang/2021 Page 6 of 25 enhancement of TP margin of Rs.17,48,41,864. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The ld. AR submitted that while the TPO excluded the companies having low turnover i.e., companies having turnover below Rs.1 crore, but he failed to apply

M/S. Volvo Group India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Volvo India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD) Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

ITA 498/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 201Section 40

taxmann.com 107. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR submitted before us the break-up of the provision created from the TDS point of view and made submissions as to why tax is not deductible against

M/S Praxair India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ltpu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2839/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

directions, the final assessment order was passed on 31.10.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The issues raised before the Tribunal are as follows:- (i) Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.27,17,30,661 in respect of the international transaction

M/S. Karthik Estate, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 263

provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assesses during the course of the set-aside proceedings.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that there was no lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry by the AO. who after verifying and also

M/S. Rittal India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 392/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92Section 92C

adjustment as well as the disallowance made by the AO. The AO passed the final assessment order against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Notional interest on receivables 4. During the course of TP proceedings the AO treated the delay in receivables as a separate international transaction after

Safran Engineering Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circe-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 297/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

enhanced to Rs.69,07,390 towards interest on delayed receivables. The AO passed the final assessment order accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised 18 grounds with regard to the ALP adjustment in respect of "Interest on Outstanding Receivables". Ground

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 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 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Pursuant to the draft assessment order, the impugned final assessment order was passed on 27.03.2021. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Both the parties agreed that revised grounds submitted on 01.10.2021 may be adjudicated. The revised grounds raised read as follows:- “The grounds mentioned

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

were rejected by the CIT(Appeals) who proceeded to treat the premium on preference shares as deemed dividend. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. For AY 2010-11, the TPO determined the Arm’s length The common issue for these two years is the treatment