“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

Smr. Heena Parag Chheda, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ciercle-21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6549/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld.CIT (A) concurred with the action of the assessing officer. 5. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Ld.AR of the assessee before CIT(A) placed reliance

Mangilal Padamchand, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 25/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Harish, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR relied on the ITAT’s Order in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 6. The learned

M/S. Pilvo Communications Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 716/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Prashanth G.S., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1425/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/So D.C.Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaaco8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

respect of the entire alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee from the aforesaid three parties. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 5113/Mum/2017. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2018 estimated the addition in respect of bogus purchases to 12.5% of alleged purchases

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-7, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

dated 31.10.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT under section 263 of the Act, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 1348 days in filing this appeal by the assessee. The impugned order as we have already seen ... Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final order of assessment dated 26.7.2019 against which the Assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal which is ITA No.2042/Bang/2019 through Mr. Suresh Muthukrishna, CA. It appears that Mr.Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA also suggested to the assessee that an appeal

N.R. Kumaraswamy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 26/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act and also following certain decisions rendered by Tribunals. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal. 4. The contention of the assessee was that it has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due date prescribed

Sri. Karur Jayaprakash, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

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

ITA 101/BANG/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Deepika, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

order from the AO. Page 4 of 9 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a considerable delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and we will first decide on the assessee’s request for condonation ... copy of the order of the CIT(A) on 27th January 2021. The ld.AR, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was not due to any failure on the part of the assessee and hence the delay may be condoned. Page

M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 373/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Vantage Agora Marketing Pvt. Ltd., # Pixel Park-A, 4Th Floor, The Deputy Pes Institute Of Commissioner Of Technology, Income Tax, Vs. Hosur Road, Electronic Circle – 12(5), City, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1443P Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysuru, Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar

Section 10ASection 234CSection 72

applicable amount of interest chargeable under section 234A & C of the Act.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld.AR that there is delay of 1178 days in filing the present appeal before ... behalf of assessee that caused such huge delay. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. Application of condonation of delay accordingly stand allowed. 9. The only issue on merits that arises in the present appeal computation of deduction under section

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2042/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Asia Power Projects Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 6, Lakeside Residency, 4 Income Tax, Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Circle – 11 (1), Bangalore – 560 042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadca0485B Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca & Assessee By Shri Keerthi Narayan, Ca : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 09.09.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Grounds Of Appeal Listed Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (`A0') Dated 31 January 2014 & The Order

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

addition made by the Ld.AO was upheld. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), both assessee as well as revenue and appeal before the Tribunal. We shall 1st take of the appeal filed by the revenue. The only issue raised by revenues against of allowance of foreign- exchange losses

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee as well as revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 195Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Chetas Gulabbhai Desai, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1934/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1934/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2018-19 ) Chetas Gulabbhai Desai, 7-37 Kalyan Building, 130-D Khadilkar Road, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Aflpd-4523-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore -560 500 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

outside the purview of section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the first appellate authority, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri T. Shankar representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. 4. We have

M/S. Gurusidesha Rachappa Hatrote, Hubballi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3), Hubballi

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

confirmed the order of the AO. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions. As we have already observed while deciding the earlier appeals, the modus operandi of the business was to effect

M/S. Gurusidesha Rachappa Hatrote, Hubballi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3), Hubballi

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1309/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

M/S. Gurusidesha Rachappa Hatrote, Hubballi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3), Hubballi

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1308/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Smt. Thahseen Husna, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2902/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2009-10 Smt. Thahseen Husna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #64-65, 27Th Main, Nift Road, Income Tax, Hsr Sector – 1, Circle – 4[3][1], Bengaluru–560 034. Bengaluru. Pan : Aauph 4381 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2022 O R D E R

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

Arjumand Yasmeen and corresponding credits in assessee's accounts. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the asessee while reiterating the case of the assessee as put forth before the AO submitted that atleast on Page

Sri. P. Shyamaraju, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 9/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR

Section 54FSection 79A

Aggrieved by the orders for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the company is in appeal before the Tribunal by contending that the capital gains ought to be assessed substantively in its hands and also raised grounds that it is exempt from capital gains since it is a sale