← 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 General Aerodynamics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S General Aerodynamics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer-2(1)(2), Ali Chambers, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Room No. 543, Aayakar Mumbai-400023. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate-400021. Pan No. Aabcg 4629 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Smita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/07/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

also upheld the disallowance. . The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee is an appeal before the assessee is an appeal before the Tribunal Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. s reproduced above. 4. Before us the Ld. counsel Ld. counsel of the assessee filed

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 928/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

computation under section 115JB of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. In view of our findings on ground No.1 of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & ground No.5 of A.Y. 2013-14, when there

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3299/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

computation under section 115JB of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. In view of our findings on ground No.1 of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & ground No.5 of A.Y. 2013-14, when there

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

computation under section 115JB of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. In view of our findings on ground No.1 of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & ground No.5 of A.Y. 2013-14, when there

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5025/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)

that these revenues cannot be treated as fees for technical services under the Indo-UK tax treaty, by not challenging these findings in appeal before the Tribunal. Once the Assessing Officer accepts these findings of the CIT(A) for one assessment year, it cannot be open to him to challenge

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5024/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999
Section 143(3)

that these revenues cannot be treated as fees for technical services under the Indo-UK tax treaty, by not challenging these findings in appeal before the Tribunal. Once the Assessing Officer accepts these findings of the CIT(A) for one assessment year, it cannot be open to him to challenge

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4997/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)

that these revenues cannot be treated as fees for technical services under the Indo-UK tax treaty, by not challenging these findings in appeal before the Tribunal. Once the Assessing Officer accepts these findings of the CIT(A) for one assessment year, it cannot be open to him to challenge

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) RG. 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4996/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999
Section 143(3)

that these revenues cannot be treated as fees for technical services under the Indo-UK tax treaty, by not challenging these findings in appeal before the Tribunal. Once the Assessing Officer accepts these findings of the CIT(A) for one assessment year, it cannot be open to him to challenge

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

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

ITA 241/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rama Nathan R, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 40

appeal before him. 4 ITA No.241/Bang/2022. M/s.Anand Sweets & Savouries. 5. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing therein the written submissions and enclosures submitted before the CIT(A). The learned AR reiterated

Smt Munilakshamamma, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 880/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.T.Srinivas Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45Section 53A

capital assets u/s 2(14) of the I.T.Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 400 pages enclosing therein copy of the development agreement dated 23.06.2011, copy

Mr. Prakash J. Jaju, Mumbai vs. ITO - 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1904/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1904/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2004-05) Mr.Prakash J. Jaju, B-706, Tranquility, Shastri Nagar, Lokhandwala, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 Pan: Aadpj-0253-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer -11(1)(3), Room No.438, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vachashpati Tripathi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Even before the CIT(A) the assessee could not furnish supporting documents to substantiate its contentions. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee in grounds of appeal has assailed the addition on merits as well as raising legal grounds on violation of principles of natural

Lata Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(3) (3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2074/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2074/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Lata Holding Private Ltd. C/O. C.S.Anand,Advocate, 104, Pankaj Tower, 10 L.S.C Savita Vihar, Delhi – 110 092 Pan: Aaacl-2526-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Ward 12(3)(3)-Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri C.S.Anand ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( In Short ‘The Cit(A) ’) Dated 17/09/2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri C.S.Anand Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Order Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee. A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Would Show That The Cit(A) Issued Only Single Notice Of Hearing I.E. For Dated

For Appellant: Shri C.S.AnandFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 147

although ground assailing reopening of assessment was raised. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that ground No.1 to 5 of the appeal before the Tribunal are additional grounds raising legal issue challenging validity of reopening the proceedings. No fresh evidences is required to be adduced for deciding this legal ... find that in Form No.35 the assessee has challenged reopening of assessment in ground No.1 of the appeal, however, the assessee in second appeal before the Tribunal has raised exhaustive grounds challenging initiation of proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. The additional grounds of appeal i.e. ground

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2581/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Court and confirmed the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the argument that the assessee‟s reasons constitutes a reasonable cause. 27. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee ... however penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not imposable in view of Section 273B of the Act. And that the revenue’s appeal against the Tribunal’s decision of 27.06.2014 was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.213 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018. Thus

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2580/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Court and confirmed the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the argument that the assessee‟s reasons constitutes a reasonable cause. 27. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee ... however penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not imposable in view of Section 273B of the Act. And that the revenue’s appeal against the Tribunal’s decision of 27.06.2014 was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.213 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018. Thus

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Court and confirmed the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the argument that the assessee‟s reasons constitutes a reasonable cause. 27. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee ... however penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not imposable in view of Section 273B of the Act. And that the revenue’s appeal against the Tribunal’s decision of 27.06.2014 was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.213 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018. Thus

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1482/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Court and confirmed the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the argument that the assessee‟s reasons constitutes a reasonable cause. 27. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee ... however penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act is not imposable in view of Section 273B of the Act. And that the revenue’s appeal against the Tribunal’s decision of 27.06.2014 was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.213 of 2015 dated 06.02.2018. Thus

Suntcoppa Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Limited, Kodagu vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

ITA 487/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

above grounds.” 2. At the outset we note that, there is a delay of 502 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal which is due to covert 19 pandemic that persisted at the relevant period when the impugned order was passed by the learnt Pr.CIT. 3. Considering ... directions by Hon’ble Supreme Court that prevailed during the relevant period the delay in filing the present appeal before the tribunal stands condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 4.1 The assessee is a cooperative bank. For the assessment year 2015-2016, the return of income

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

which the SWD services TP adjustment was reworked to Rs.5,49,84,884/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Briefly, the grounds in the appeal which are being pressed are as follows: (i) That the DRP erred in upholding the inclusion ... which the TP adjustment was reworked at Rs. 11,25,36,877/-. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 33. The grounds in the appeal which are being pressed are as follows: (i) That the lower authorities erred in characterizing the assessee

M/S. Bateman Engineering (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1139/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R. Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92C

revised order passed subsequently. Considering the same, I dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.” Page 4 of 8 7. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(Appeals). The assessee raised 12 grounds and several sub- grounds pertaining to the TP adjustment made

Rolta India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 763/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 763/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Rolta India Ltd. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai 400 093 Pan: Aaacr-2711-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1(1), Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexure, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Shekhar Gupta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalla Jha

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalla Jha
Section 143(3)

Cylinders Ltd., 378 ITR 57 restricted the corporate guarantee commission rate to 0.5%. Against the findings of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.882/Mum/2017 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench upheld the findings of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of Revenue. Similarly