“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 Xindia Steels Limited, Koppal vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143

Social Responsibility expenditure of Rs.70,52,990. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Interest on borrowed funds 5. The assessee company advanced certain interest-free short term loans of Rs.17,21,00,000 to Shri

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

Page 20 IT(IT)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 20. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 21. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that, the view taken by authorities below is based on the amendment made to section ... final order of assessment in which he brought to tax BT charges as royalty. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 24. The arguments advanced by the parties are almost identical to the arguments advanced before the AO. The Ld.AR for the Assessee brought

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

Shri. Ibrahim Kaluseth Agewan, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed

ITA 879/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.879/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2011-12) Shri Ibrahim Kalusethagewan Usman Tyre Services, A-55, Opp.Sion Goods Yard, Lbs Road, Sion(West), Mumbai – 400 022. Pan: Agupa-0959-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(1)(5) Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Mr.R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.R.A.Dhyani

sought remand report. After considering the same and submissions of assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in toto. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Mr.R.A.Dhyani representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that

Prasanna Kumar, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 229/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.229/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Prasanna Kumar Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4-3-298/12, Palemar International Taxation Vs. Bejai Church, Cross Road Circle - 2(2), Bangalore Mangalore 575004 Pan –Bfapk0601P Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 50C

same was rejected for the reason that the AO has computed the long term capital gain. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I heard the parties and perused the record. I noticed that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.45 lakhs to the seller

M/S. Maxim Integrated Products India Sales Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 208/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92C

confirmed the action of the TPO and accordingly the final order of assessment was passed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The TPO during the proceedings u/s. 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] treated the receivables as a separate international transaction ... confirmed the computation of income and treatment of receivables as a separate international transaction done by the TPO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the treatment of interest on outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction is not warranted

Mrs. Stella Suresh Srivastava, Mysuru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 647/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234Section 69

case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the details of cash deposits and withdrawals have been submitted before the lower authorities

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Valdel Projects Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2515/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

held against the assessee to deny its claim of deduction of interest payment on borrowings. 7. Aggrieved at the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR submitted that the assessee has borrowed the funds by issuing debenture with interest rate of 15% and the funds so borrowed

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3279/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

disallowances made by the AO except the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D. The assessee did not prefer any further appeal whereas the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief given by the CIT(A) 6. The effective grounds raised by the revenue for AY 2010-11 are reproduced below

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

appeal filed by the assessee before Ld CIT(A) challenging the assessment order was partly allowed. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The first issue relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA of the Act. The facts are that the assessee claimed

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 555/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

Rs.1.32 Crores (Rs.1.92 Crores – Rs.60 lakhs). 19. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned DR reiterated the stand of the AO. Learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A). 20. After considering the rival submissions

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

computing book profit u/s 115JB is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.” 14.1.3. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, clause (i) to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) by the Finance Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 which reads as under: "(i) the amount ... Officer by the Tribunal in Assessee‟s own case for the immediately preceding Assessment Year 2003-04. 14.6.4. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, clause (i) to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) by the Finance Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 which provides that

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Ganesh Hebbar Panambur, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 312/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Ganesh Hebbar Panambur The Income Tax Officer No.18, Midford Gardens Ward - 1(2)(1) Vs. C 603, Somerset Apartments Bengaluru M.Gt. Road, Bangalore 560001 Pan –Afxpp9107M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Hemant Pai, Ca Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Council For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

Section 144Section 69A

hence the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal confirming the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2 Shri Ganesh Hebbar Panambur 4. The learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that there was reasonable cause for the assessee

M/S. Devanam Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2644/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper book (one comprising of 68 pages and the other comprising of 101 pages). Enclosed

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rational Art & Press Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2331/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Rational Art & Press Pvt. Central Circle-8(1), Ltd., Vs. Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 21, Nirmal, Nariman Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr7185E Appellant Respondent : Mr. T. Shankar.Dr Revenue By : Mr. Siddharth Kothari. Ar Assessee By : 18/05/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 26/05/2022 Pronouncement Order

For Appellant: 18/05/2022For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.16,34,10,000/- and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, whereas the Hon’ble Tribunal in ITA No. 7615/M/2016 & 7673/M/2016 dated 28-02-2019 has upheld the decision

Galax E Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 389/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Brito, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the Assessee did not get relief from the DRP, the Assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The main grievance of the Assessee projected in ground No.3 of the concise grounds of appeal which alone was pressed for adjudication with ... this regard.” 21. Aggrieved by the order of the DRP which was incorporated in the final order of assessment, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned counsel for Assessee pointed out that the DRP in its direction dated 04.03.2021 in para