“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

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250

bringing to tax the sum of Rs.29,85,34,673/-.” 10. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 11. As far as the application for condoning delay in filing this appeal is concerned, it has been submitted in an affidavit

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Pursuant to the directions of the DRP the AO passed final assessment order. Aggrieved by the final assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised grounds with respect to legal issues and grounds on merits against the TP adjustment. The assessee has also

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Ym Motors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JaniFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 201Section 250Section 40

application, the assessee has submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) was served on 25.08.2020 and thus the appeal before the Tribunal was to be filed on/or before 24.10.2020. The assessee further submitted that due to worst pandemic situation in Mumbai during the period from October

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M J Siwani 366 ITR 356. 4. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. We will first consider the legal ground raised challenging the reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The learned

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 141/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 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

M/S. Universal Bottler Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 140/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shanthappa, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Arunasalam Jeyakumar, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 139/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz ul Rahaman, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

dismissed the appeal without hearing the appeal on merit. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld AR submitted that the delay is covered by the Cognizance for Limitation (2020) 117 taxmann.com 66 (SC) dated 23.03.2020, where

Shri. Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

assessee is in appeal before. 3. At the outset, it is noticed that there was delay of 951 days in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee has not well educated and passed only 10th class and entrusted work of filing of appeal to an auditor ... pendency of outstanding demand in income tax login portal. He sought advice from the present counsel, who advised for filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, which caused delay of 951 days. Out of this, 678 days is upto the 3 date of pre Covid-19 Pandemic and balance

ITO 32(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Smt.Jasmin R Desai, Mumbai

ITA 1232/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1232/मुं/2020 ("न. व .2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 32(2)(1), Room No.715, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41-43, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Smt. Jasmin R. Desai, 602, Shashi Apartment Ramraj P Devidas Lane, Borivali (West) Mumbai 400 103 Pan: Aaapd-4848-B ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma and Shri T. Sankar

Section 143(3)

addition in respect of suppressed profits on unverifiable purchase to 12.5%. Against the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 3. Shri T. Sankar representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing the findings

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3403/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2908/मुं/2019 ("न.व .2015-16) The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. Pan: Aaacl-0582-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 3403/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2015-16) Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaacl-0582-H बनाम Vs. The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 02

For Appellant: Shri T. SankarFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 44

addition. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the Revenue has raised identical ground in Assessment Year 2011-12- in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.4459/Mum/2015(supra), challenging deletion of the addition made on account of interim bonus. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench has restored

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T. SankarFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 44

M/S. Nsl Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 262/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.262/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nsl Sugars Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 60/1, 2Nd Cross V. Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) Residency Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aagcs0938Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Am : This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Dcit Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 30.04.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. Brief Facts Of The Case 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Sugar & Molasses Etc. It Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-2017 On 30.11.2016 With Returned Loss Of Rs.78,24,50,827. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. Reference Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) For Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Specified Domestic Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee. The Tpo Passed An Order U/S 92Ca On 30.10.2019 Proposing The Adjustment Of Rs.96,57,60,845. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed A Draft Assessment Order On 23.12.2019 Incorporating The Tp Adjustment Proposed By The Tpo. In Addition, The Ao

For Appellant: Sri.T.Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 92C

final assessment order giving effect to the directions of the DRP. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised several grounds contending the below two disallowances made by the AO:- (i) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D – Rs.1

M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2327/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2327/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Plot No.365, Sompura 1St Stage Kiadb Industrial Area Dobbaspet, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural Dist – 562 111. Pan : Aadct0271C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

directions, the final assessment order was passed. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing therein the TP study, the financials etc. The learned AR has filed a brief written submission. The contentions raised

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

carrying on business at Bombay; that the applicant was not a resident ; and that the estimate was excessive. The Tribunal held that the appeal before the Tribunal should be restricted to the quantum of assessment, and the question of jurisdiction of the ITO to make assessment could not be challenged

Sri Lakshmi Narasimaha Bharatgas, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 631/BANG/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraj, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 144Section 41(1)

total income returned by the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed both the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee could not appear before the AO for the reasons beyond its control. However, the assessee furnished details relating

Asha Financial Services, Nanjangud vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Mysore

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

ITA 629/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Rs.6,62,852/- and estimate the income on the remaining amount of cash deposited by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld A.R submitted that the tax authorities are wrong on facts in observing that the assessee has offered income