“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

Sonal Classic Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 2390/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - 2014-15 - 2015-16 - 2016-17

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

rectification order holding that there was no infirmity in the CPC order was incorrect. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR appearing for the assessee before submitted that the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that investments

M/S. Hp Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234B

thereby making an adjustment of Rs.81,87,096. Aggrieved by this adjustment made by the AO, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the CPC vide intimation dated 167.3.2018 u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act proposed to make an addition

Nemchand Vasanji Chheda, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2467/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ao. However, The Ao Assessed The Above Said Amount Of Rs.35,32,500/- By Observing As Under:-

Section 68

Learned CIT(A) also observed that the bonafides and genuineness of the transaction does not get established. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I heard the parties and perused the record. At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R took me to the following documents

M/S. Canadian International School Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

said disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the employee contribution of PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing of return of income

M/S. Goodwill Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 497/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

Lmg Consulting Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Splash Fashions India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 449/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Lmg Consulting Services India Pvt. Ltd., [Formerly Known As Splash Fashions India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd.], Director Of 4Th Floor, Building No. 3, Income Tax, 77 Town Centre, Cpc, Off Hal Airport Road, Vs. Bangalore. Yemlur, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aarcs5369N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2022 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Disallowance Towards Delayed Remittance Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund ["Pf"] Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

On Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

adjustment was incorporated in the final assessment order dated 13.04.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. We shall briefly describe the TP adjustments proposed by the TPO and what are the DRP’s direction on the same

Datacorp Traffic Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 502/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

No.502/Bang/2022. M/s.Datacorp Traffic Private Limited. I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order

Datacorp Traffic Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 501/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

No.501/Bang/2022. M/s.Datacorp Traffic Private Limited. I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 73/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

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

adjustment. Consequently, the final assessment order was passed sustaining the TP adjustment of Rs.56,87,323. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Though various grounds of appeal are raised by the assessee, the ld. AR submitted that the issues that arise for consideration in this appeal

Smt Juri H. Mehanta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 630/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Also, The Assessee Did Not Appear & Hence Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Non-Prosecution On The Part Of The Assessee.

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution on the part of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The appeal is barred by the limitation by 1000 days. The assessee has filed a petition stating that she is suffering from breast

Pukhraj, Shivamogga vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Shivamogga

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. Acit, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1St Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. Pan : Afjpp 7695 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Page 3 of 10 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) passed through NFAC. 6. The learned AR submitted that: i. The disallowance is made ... cash and the genuineness of the funds used for repayment has not been proved by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The learned AR submitted that all the details pertaining to the housing loan was submitted before the lower authorities including cash book reflecting

B N Prasanna Kumar, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 466/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69A

PCIT) order dated 08.03.2020. The relevant assessment year is 2017- 2018. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 24 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The order of the PCIT dated 08.03.2020 was received by the assessee on 11.03.2020, hence, the appeal ought to have been filed ... directed to revise the assessment order accordingly and also invoke penal provisions u/s 271AAC.” 7. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing therein copies of notice issued u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, the objections filed, the sworn statement

Dr. Sheela Puttabuddi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 293/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvoicateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

arise. Considering above the additional evidence as submitted by the appellant is not admitted.” 6. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 60 pages enclosing therein copy of computation 5 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. of total income

Arun Kanhaiya Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO- Ward-26(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6100/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: The Tribunal. Accordingly, I Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

Section 143(2)

submissions made in the petition, I am of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2 Arun Kanhaiya Gupta 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has raised

Leila Advani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

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

Dr. R Sridhar, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 50E

Assessing Officer is directed to make a fresh assessment.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. AR submitted that one of the reasons for taking up the case for scrutiny was to verify the large long term capital

M/S. Atria Convergence Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

stating that the same cannot be allowed unless the genuineness and character of the same is established. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. AR submitted that the complete list of payments made to LCOs towards revenue share with party-wise details was furnished before ... basis that the assessee is deemed to have incurred general administrative expenses to manage the investments. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that while considering the average investment, the AO has taken the whole of the investments at the beginning

M/S Kable First Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1696/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narayana, K.R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 4o

impugned order. The assessee's grounds of appeal are therefore disallowed, subject to above direction.” 8. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(Appeals). The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He also submitted that recognition of revenue

M/S Kable First Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1695/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narayana, K.R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 4o