“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

Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cent. Cir-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2110/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Unique Estates Dev. Co. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1906, 19Th Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor, Air India Bldg, Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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)-52, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For 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 As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, On Issue Of Advancing Of Interest Free Loans Of Rs.4,68,220/- & So Called Bogus Purchases Of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.12,39,12,768/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 18.03.2014 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income (Normal Computation) At Rs.21,59,51,554/-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay B. SawantFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 10.09.2015 confirming disallowance made by the AO. The assessee being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 30.11.2015. 5. Meanwhile, the assessee was given a notice dated 18.03.2014 to explain as to why penalty

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das

Section 115OSection 14A

similar claim allowed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in assessee's own case in Assessment Year 2008- 09, the revenue has not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal. In view of the above, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Ground raised is dismissed. 038. Therefore, respectfully

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

case of the adjacent plot of Meher Rusi Dalal. In that case, the only issue in the department’s appeal before the Tribunal (no appeal by the assessee) was the allow ability of payment made to Mr. Kishore Manusukhani and others the Hon’ble tribunal held vide order dated 28th

M/S. Hassan Power Supply Company Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 500/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate/Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

part of the assessee and that there exists no sufficient / good reason for condoning the delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 4 of 6 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee was initially advised

Airlinq Technology Private Limited (Formerly Known As Globetouch Technologies Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 231/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.231/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Globe Touch Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Technologies Private Limited) 306, 100 Feet Road, Binna Mangala Stage – 1, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aafcg7626L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, Cas Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 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 29.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Was Incorporated On 15.10.2014 As A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Globetouch Inc, Usa. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services (Swd) To Globetouch Inc. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring An Income Of Rs.4,23,01,510 Under The Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act. The Assessment Was Selected

For Appellant: S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, CAsFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

directions, final assessment order was passed on 29.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Several grounds are raised by the assessee. However, during the course of hearing, the learned AR had only pressed grounds

Harbirsing Y. Bhavra, Thane vs. ITO-4(5), Thane

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

ITA 1485/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Harbirsing Y. Bhavra, Income Tax Officer-4(5), B/305, Ruchin Apartment, Room No. 03, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Sai Nagar, Vasai, Vs. Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Thane-401-209. Estate, Road No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400-604. Pan No. Aljpb 7870 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Sr. DR

Section 68

been passed on 20/09/2019 and therefore appeal before the passed on 20/09/2019 and therefore appeal before the passed on 20/09/2019 and therefore appeal before the Tribunal was due on or before 19/11/2019, whereas this appeal is been filed was due on or before 19/11/2019, whereas this appeal is been filed ... last week of January 2020 and thereafter on professional advice, he filed the appeal before the professional advice, he filed the appeal before the Tribunal Tribunal. The Ld. DR did not controvert the facts narrated by the assessee in the did not controvert the facts narrated by the assessee

Hcc Samsung Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 29 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals

ITA 7372/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hcc Samsung Joint Venture, Asst. Cit-29(2), Hincon House, Lbs Marg, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Vikhroli (W), Vs. C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Mumbai-400083. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaah 8586 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash Kanojia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

allowed part relief . On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds

Hcc Samsung Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 29 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals

ITA 7365/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash Kanojia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7163/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR

Section 68

grounds of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the n appeal before the Tribunal raising the ground as raising the ground as reproduced above. 4. Ground No. 1 of the appeal of the appeal relates to rejection

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7162/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR

Section 68

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

entire purchases by way of detailed finding. Aggr by way of detailed finding. Aggrieved ieved, the assessee filed appeal before the filed appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds is reproduced raising the grounds is reproduced above. 6. The appeal filed by the The appeal filed by the assessee

Sarvesh Mercantile P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4634/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR

Section 68

Sadhu Salian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

assessment order with a direction to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after making thorough enquiry. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has declared the adhoc additional income of Rs.25 lakhs which was over

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

satisfy the test of genuineness and are therefore, liable to be added as unexplained credits u/s. 68.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the order passed must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The learned PCIT

Arjunsa Megharajasa Kathwate, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in terms of section 263.” 10. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The ld. AR submitted that the order passed must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The learned PCIT

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solution Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 171/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 37Section 40

adjustment. The DRP, against the objections raised by the assessee confirmed the disallowances and the TP adjustment. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. The learned AR submitted before us that

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

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

ITA 477/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

increase of TP adjustment by Rs.34,35,189. Consequently, the AO passed the final assessment order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.477/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 20 TP adjustment in SWD segment 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has entered into

ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sandeep D. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 101/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

decide the issue on merits. The Learned CIT(A) deleted both the additions and hence the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I noticed that learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition with the following observations : “I have carefully gone through the assessment order, the written submission

M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 499/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. No.1, Grant Road, Cunningham Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 001. Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaacb 8624N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(OSD)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

part of the assessee and that there exist no sufficient / good reason for condoning the delay. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 4 of 6 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee was initially advised

Gmr Airports Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 493/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Gmr Airports Ltd., The Assistant Director Of Vs. No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 025. Cpc, Pan : Aaacm 7791H Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 244A

dismissed the appeal stating that the assessee should file appeal not against 143(1) but somewhere else. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and prayed that the assessee was entitled to further interest