← 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

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

subject to verification by AO; and upheld the rest of the disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved, both the parties are in appeal before the Tribunal. While the revenue’s appeal is only with regard to the deletion of disallowance of Data Automation Expenses, the assessee in its appeal ... favour of the assessee based on his order in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR submitted that EDA software is purchased and charged to the assessee on usage basis, therefore the original software is capital

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

subject to verification by AO; and upheld the rest of the disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved, both the parties are in appeal before the Tribunal. While the revenue’s appeal is only with regard to the deletion of disallowance of Data Automation Expenses, the assessee in its appeal ... favour of the assessee based on his order in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR submitted that EDA software is purchased and charged to the assessee on usage basis, therefore the original software is capital

M/S Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

towards a long-term capital gain. 3.10 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee as well as revenue are an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Revenue is in appeal for AY:2010-11 on only one issue being the treatment of maintenance advance in the hands

Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

towards a long-term capital gain. 3.10 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee as well as revenue are an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Revenue is in appeal for AY:2010-11 on only one issue being the treatment of maintenance advance in the hands

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

towards a long-term capital gain. 3.10 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee as well as revenue are an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Revenue is in appeal for AY:2010-11 on only one issue being the treatment of maintenance advance in the hands

Dy.CIT 13(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sahakar Global Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 46/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

Apex Court decision in the case of Alom Extruions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the appellate proceedings before us, the Ld.DR vehemently argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to consider the decisions of Hon’ble ITAT Vedvan Consultants

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

bona fide and same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. In that particular case, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was under Section 80IA of the Act. Assessee submitted that for the subsequent year when the claim of the assessee

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

bona fide and same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. In that particular case, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was under Section 80IA of the Act. Assessee submitted that for the subsequent year when the claim of the assessee

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

bona fide and same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. In that particular case, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was under Section 80IA of the Act. Assessee submitted that for the subsequent year when the claim of the assessee

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

bona fide and same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. In that particular case, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was under Section 80IA of the Act. Assessee submitted that for the subsequent year when the claim of the assessee

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

bona fide and same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. In that particular case, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was under Section 80IA of the Act. Assessee submitted that for the subsequent year when the claim of the assessee

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

bona fide and same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. In that particular case, the assessee raised additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was under Section 80IA of the Act. Assessee submitted that for the subsequent year when the claim of the assessee

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cur 7(1)

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

case for A.Y 2008-09. The revenue had not carried the aforesaid order of the CIT(A) any further in appeal before the Tribunal, which thus had attained finality. Be that as it may, we find that the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Owens and Corning (India ... allowed by the CIT(A) had also been accepted by the revenue and the same had also not been carried any further in appeal before the Tribunal. In terms of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the assessee had rightly claimed depreciation on computer software

M/S Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2922/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 35A

principles cannot be extended to a case under the Act. 18. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Section 35AD of the Act grants deduction of capital expenditure, incurred wholly and exclusively

M/S Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2921/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 35A

principles cannot be extended to a case under the Act. 18. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Section 35AD of the Act grants deduction of capital expenditure, incurred wholly and exclusively

M/S Rittal India Pvt Ltd, Doddaballapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

addition made in the final order of assessment in the form of shortfall in determination of ALP and is therefore preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised the grounds with regard to validity of the reference made by the AO to the TPO u/s 92CA

M/S Ideb Buildcon Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1465/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)

only on the basis of information available in original assessment and cannot be substituted by any later information. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the second round. 8. The ld. AR submitted that the AO has wrongly interpreted the directions of the ITAT while remanding

Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

मुं/2012, 1429 & 1178/ मुं/2014(िन.व. 2008-09 & 2009-10) ITA No.7721 /Mum/2012, 1429 & 1178/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 4686/Mum/2010. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2013 following the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Star

Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

मुं/2012, 1429 & 1178/ मुं/2014(िन.व. 2008-09 & 2009-10) ITA No.7721 /Mum/2012, 1429 & 1178/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 4686/Mum/2010. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2013 following the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Star

Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1178/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

मुं/2012, 1429 & 1178/ मुं/2014(िन.व. 2008-09 & 2009-10) ITA No.7721 /Mum/2012, 1429 & 1178/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 4686/Mum/2010. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2013 following the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Star