“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. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 353/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 132Section 153C

additions are sustained.” 15. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has raised ground No.2 in the revised grounds of appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.352/Bang/2020 for AY 2009-10. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee who reiterated ... this regard are factually incorrect. 20. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that Shri. Jitendra Virwani of Embassy Group was a business associate with whom the assessee’s group had transactions

M/S. Century Bangalore City Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 352/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 132Section 153C

Smt.Chalsasni Babu Rajendra Prasad, Koppal vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Koppal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 506/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)

Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 4. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the orders of assessment. Aggrieved, the assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the assessees entered into Sale Agreement on 14.3.2009 and major part of consideration of Rs.1

Smt C Rathnabhai, Koppal vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Koppal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2527/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C