← 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

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

with the additions/disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appea assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds , raising the grounds as reproduced above. Sheth Creators Private Limited Sheth Creator 7 ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. 5. Before

Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

with the additions/disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appea assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds , raising the grounds as reproduced above. Sheth Creators Private Limited Sheth Creator 7 ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. 5. Before

Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1857/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

with the additions/disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appea assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds , raising the grounds as reproduced above. Sheth Creators Private Limited Sheth Creator 7 ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. 5. Before

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3696/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

with the additions/disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appea assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds , raising the grounds as reproduced above. Sheth Creators Private Limited Sheth Creator 7 ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. 5. Before

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2620/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

with the additions/disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appea assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds , raising the grounds as reproduced above. Sheth Creators Private Limited Sheth Creator 7 ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four Ors. 5. Before

Smt. Karishma Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 99/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.99/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Ms.Karishma Sharma The Income Tax Officer, Kailash Building No.21 International Taxation V. Ward 2(1), Bangalore. Kodichikkanahalli Main Road Kaveri Nagar, Bommanahalli Bangalore – 560 068. Pan : Balps6030E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 O R D E R This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 29.11.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether Cash Deposit Of Rs.14.41 Lakh Can Be Considered As Unexplained?

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 69A

grounds of appeal taken cannot be supported.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as it is against

Dy Cti, CC-16(1), Mumbai vs. Shipa Shetty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 478/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 92A(2)(j)Section 92B

deleted the addition of Rs.1.50 crores made by the Assessing Officer as transfer pricing adjustment. Aggrieved the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the record. We noticed that learned CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition by following the decision

H.U.F. of His Late Highness Sir J.M. Scindia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range -18(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5536/MUM/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Us :-

Section 154Section 244A

Late Highness Sir J.M.Scindia There is no allegation or material on record to suggest that any of the proceedings hit the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal or remanded the proceedings before the CIT(A) whether in any manner delayed on accounts of the reasons attributable to the assessee

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1207/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

levied for assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20. The penalty were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1208 to 1212/Mum/2022. The Tribunal vide order dated 29/06/2022 deleted the penalty. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1206/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

levied for assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20. The penalty were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1208 to 1212/Mum/2022. The Tribunal vide order dated 29/06/2022 deleted the penalty. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that

DCIT -15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lauren Bharat Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3579/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.3579/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 15(2)(1), Room No.357, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Lauren Bharat Engineering Private Limited, C-401, Delphi Building, Orchad Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Pan: Aabcl-9571-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mehul JainFor Respondent: None

vide impugned order granted part relief to the assessee. Against the relief granted by First Appellate Authority, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submissions made by ld.Departmental Representative and have examined orders of authorities below. 5. In ground No.1 of appeal, the Revenue

Girish Panambur Venkatraman, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer International Taxation, Ward- Mangalore, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanit(It)A No.394/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Girish Panambur Vs. Ito (International Tax Ward), Venkatraman, Mangaluru. 2-95 Giri Prasad, Kulaihosabettu, Mangaluru – 575 026. Pan : Aeqpv 4737 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pramod Shirke, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Pramod Shirke, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 69A

case. The grounds of appeal are rejected.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the rival submissions. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the earlier withdrawals of cash have to be accepted

Sri. Subhasa Poojari, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 378/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Subhasa Poojari, Vs. Ito, Old No.6, New No.18/2, Ward – 1(2)(3), Dodda Kattappa Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Ehrps 6826 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chythanya V. Mudrabettu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Chythanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

authentic. Considering the above, grounds Nos. 4 and 5 are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. I have considered the rival submissions and the evidence filed by the assessee before the lower authorities and the Tribunal. The first

M/S. Bappanalli Brothers, Sirsi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 251/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bappanalli Brothers, Vs. Acit, C/15, Godown Ampc Yard, Circle — 1(1), New Market Yard, Hubballi. Sirsi — 581 402. Pan : Aaafb 9145 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

circumstances set out in Rule 6DD(e) of the rules. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the findings of the CIT(A) are contrary to record and based on surmises

Vijay Kumar Konenki, Bengaluru vs. CIT Appeals -12, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Konenki Vijay Kumar, Vs. Cit(Appeals) - 12, No.47, 4Th Cross, 1St Main, Bengaluru. Brindavan Layout, Dr. Amc Road, Kavalbyrasandra, Bengaluru – 560 032. Pan : Afcpv 8596 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Reshma Marathi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Reshma Marathi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 144

gets relief to the extent of Rs. 4,20,000/-.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Apart from the evidence filed by the assessee before CIT(A), certain additional evidence was also filed before the Tribunal, which

Novo Nordisk India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 611/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

raised objections before the DRP, who confirmed the order of the AO. Consequently final assessment order was passed, against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Disallowance of discount/rebate/sales commission u/s. 40(a)(ia) 5. The assessee is engaged in marketing, purchase and distribution of insulin and related products

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

upheld the TP adjustment made by the TPO, which was incorporated in the final assessment order. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and drew our attention to the TP study of the assessee

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

upheld the TP adjustment made by the TPO, which was incorporated in the final assessment order. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and drew our attention to the TP study of the assessee

Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 173/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Nuance Transcription The Assistant Commissioner Services India Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) V. Bangalore. First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170 Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaacf3465F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Vishal Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 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 22.11.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites) To Focus Enterprises Limited, Usa, Which Is An Associate Enterprise (Ae) Of The Assessee. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,99,94,900. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 2 It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/S.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Dated 14.08.2013 Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions With Its Ae. Accordingly, The Case Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Ae’S. The Tpo Vide Order Dated 28.01.2016, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92C

ITeS segment Total Assessed Income 33,62,47,340 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised 14 grounds. The assessee had also filed two additional grounds vide its applications dated 30.01.2019 and 17.03.2021. However, the additional

Smt Asha Devi Poddar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 687/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

same is a speculation loss. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the order so passed by the AO. Hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The first ground relates to disallowance of claim of bad debts of Rs. 1,79,73,982/-. The facts relating thereto