“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 Kable First India 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 1694/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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 Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

No.2680/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 50 by the AO. In pursuance thereof, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The assessee has raised 32 grounds. (i) Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 are general grounds and does not warrant separate adjudication ... India Pvt. Ltd. before the DRP. The DRP rejected the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raised the following grounds:- “5. That the learned DRP has erred, in law and in facts, in upholding the approach of the learned AO/learned TPO in rejecting

Jivaram B. Sutar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 493/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jivaram B. Suthar, Deputy Commission Of Income Tax, 7, Safalya Jeevan Chs Ltd., Cpc, R. Narkar Road, Vs. Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Asnpb 4238 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR

Section 143(1)Section 40

before the could not succeed and therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the could not succeed and therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 4. We have rival submissions of the parties

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan vs. M/S. Ras Enterprises, Kalyan

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

ITA 417/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward 3(2), M/S Ras Enterprises, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 9/5, Ellora Housing Complex No.2, Murbad Road, Vs. G. Gupte Road, Kalyan West-421 301. Dombivli (W)-421 202. Pan No. Aahfr 7866 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja Pawar/Riddi Chavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR

Section 148

amounts of unproved purchases of Rs. 5,71,056 be disallowed.” 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. the grounds

Indian Institution of Banking and Finance (Formerly Known As the India Institute of Bankers), Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 6954/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhindian Institute Of Vs. Commissioner Of Income Banking & Finance Tax (Exemptions) (Formerly Known As The Indian Room No. 617, Piramal Institute Of Bankers) Chambers Lalbaug, Tower-I, Kohinoor City Mumbai - 400012 Commercial-Ii, 3Rd Floor, Kirol Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatt3309D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 4

year under consideration, the order for the preceding year was followed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that Revenue is in further appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) for A.Y 1996-97 The CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee following the Tribunal

The Boston Consulting Group (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 234DSection 274

Mumbai and the DRP, vide order dated 30/12/2013 confirmed the addition made by the AO / TPO. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, with the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Deputy Commissioner of Income

M/S. Sprinklr India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 250/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 & Sa No.22/Bang/2022 M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, East Wing Building Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(2) V. Bengaluru. No.3, Block B, Divyashree 770 Town Centre, Off Hal Airport Road, Yamlur P.O. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aaqcs9370N. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 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 18.02.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Sprinklr Us. It Provides Software Development Services To Its Parent Company. For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.24,99,66,540. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued. During The 2 It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 & Sa 22/B/2022. M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited. Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter 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 Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide His Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act Dated 27.01.2021 Determined The Tp Adjustment Of Rs.12,63,71,153. The Details Of The Tp Adjustment Made By The Tpo Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 92C

same transfer pricing adjustment proposed in the TPO’s order. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a concise ground raising therein 11 grounds and various sub-grounds. However, the learned AR during

Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 46, (Now DCIT Cent. Cir. 8(3)), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed for AY 2009-10 is also allowed

ITA 3675/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3675, 3676, 3677 & 3678/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & ShriFor Respondent: Shri R. M. Madhvi, Ld

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

said order, assessee has filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who granted part relief; and thereafter, both the parties had filed the appeal before the Tribunal which has been disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2010. 6. Thereafter, a search and seizure action was carried

Wm Global Sourcing India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 450/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate

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

brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. Page 4 of 7 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

Adibhuta Investmen Ts Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 679/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viia)

read with Rule 8D in the light of the discussions made by him in the revision order. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court

DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. B P Marine Academy, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 963/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

submitted that the Learned CIT(A) had decided certain issues against the assessee in this year and hence the assessee has also filed appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the appeal of the assessee numbered as ITA No.174/Mum/2019 has since been disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its order

M/S. Ozone Urban Infra Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, Circel-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 225/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Tds, No.30, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru North, Circle – 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 042. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecm 5394 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

case of Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd vs ITO (2008) 303 ITR 122 (Madras). 3. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Page 5 of 18 The issue of non-remittance of TDS 4. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made ... Tribunal in the case of Agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO (2-13) 38 taxmann.com 155. 13. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the learned AR referred to clauses 10 to 12 of the Tripartite Agreement as reproduced below: “10. That if the Borrower

DCIT Tax - (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S the J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

ITA 2257/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2257/मुं/2021("न.व. 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The J.K.Trust Bombay, Ground Floor, New Hind House, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaatt-0611-L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ] Dated 21/06/2021, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 104 Days. The Assessing Officer Has Filed An Application Explaining Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Attributed To Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking In To 2 Consideration The Hardship Caused To The Litigants In The Extra Ordinary Circumstances The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India Taking Suo-Motu Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation Reported As 132 Taxamann.Com 123 Extended The Period Of Limitation Under General Laws Of Limitation & Special Laws. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Within The Extended Period Of Limitations, Hence, No Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Finance Act,2008. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. Against the findings of CIT(A) Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.3084/Mum/2019(supra). The Co-ordinate Bench following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case ... reversed the findings of Assessing Officer and allowed assessee’s claim. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.3085/Mum/2019(supra). The Tribunal following its earlier decision in ITA No.3084/Mum/2019 (supra) dismissed the appeal of Revenue. We find that in the impugned Assessment Year there

M/S. Mobily Infotech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

filed, the assessee has not mentioned the interest amount claimed against the right clause i.e. Row 6(d). 11. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The ld. AR during the course of hearing provided a detailed written submission in support ... disallowing 30% of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 20,11,358 under section 40(a)(ia). 24. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The ld. AR submitted that in the present case

Anand Sweets & Savouries, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 242/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rama Nathan R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 154

reasons advanced by the assessee did not show any good and sufficient reason for condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed a letter for rectification requesting adjustment of cash seized against

Vena Energy Patan Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 198/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Rs.9,45,270. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. TP adjustment towards interest on issue of NCD 5. During the year under consideration the assessee made a payment towards interest ... does not provide any guidelines for determination of ALP interest rate in the case of NCD. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the ld. AR made detailed written submissions which are as follows. i. While arriving at the ALP of the transaction entered