← 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

M/S Shreenidhi Stock & Broking, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal by assessee is dismissed

ITA 2621/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2621/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2007-08) M/S. Shreenidhi Stock & Broking, A-4, Shantinagar Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd., Opp.Nilgiri Hospital, S.V.Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aakfs-0438-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-2, Mumbai, Room No.529, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai ( In Short ‘The Cit(A) ’) Dated 21/02/2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Notice Of Hearing Of Appeal Was Repeatedly Sent To The Assessee On The Address Mentioned In Form No.36. The Notices Sent Through Rpad Were Received Back From Postal Authorities Unserved With Remarks “Unclaimed”.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 269TSection 271E

Assessing Officer levied penalty vide order dated 02/08/2010. After being unsuccessful before the CIT(A) the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.8008/Mum/2011. The Tribunal vide order dated 20/03/2013 restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine

Magestic Premises Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4974/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4974/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magestic Premises Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2 201, 2Nd Floor, Oasis Silver Ashar It Park 6Th Floor, Vs. Stone, Near Gaganan Wagle Industrial Estate Maharaj Temple Ram (W), Thane-400604. Maruti Road, Thane, West, Thane-400601. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm5625L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T Varkey Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing Valid Notice (Without Specifying The Fault/Charge). 3. At The Outset, We Note That There Is Delay Of More Than 1177 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Wherein The Assessee’S Director Has Sworn Before The Notary Public & Stated That Even Though The Impugned Order Was Passed U/S 153A Of The Act, It Was Handed Over To Him On 10.03.2016 & He In-Turn Handed Over The Same To One Of His Office Staff (Shri

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. AR)
Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

staff to trace out the order of Ld. CIT(A) and handed over the same to the authorized representative, who immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal. In order to substantiate that he has handed over the same to Shri Amit Prasad (employee), we note that the assessee has filed