“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

Naresh Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8108/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)(d)

learned CIT(Appeals) that in rectification order the Assessing Officer has given relief to the assessee. Aggrieved, against this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The only effective ground against the decision of the learned CIT(Appeals) is in respect of sustaining the addition

Blossom Landeal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7189/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

transaction. Therefore, the appellant fails on all three counts.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. Because the action for initiation, continuation and conclusion of assessment proceedings u/s 153A at an amount

Lata Garg, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.7187/Del

ITA 7187/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: And Shri Shantnu Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the same. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. Because the action for initiation, continuation and conclusion of assessment proceedings u/s 153A at an amount of Rs.72 ... less than amount of this expenditure (Rs. 6,41.725/-).” 15. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. We have heard the rival arguments of both the sides. The Ld. CIT(A) has given the benefit of telescoping

M/S. R.R. Forgings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 735/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S.RaoFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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 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

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1364/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1 V. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Bangalore. Bidadi, Ramangara District – 562 109. Pan : Aabct5590Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Assessing Officer. The It(T)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arises Out Of A.O’S Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, (Order Dated 29.07.2016). The It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 Arises Out Of The A.O.’S Order Passed U/S 154 (Order Dated 31.01.2011). The A.O. After Passing The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Passed Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Giving Effect To The Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In Determining The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment From Rs.37,24,00,000, To Rs.39,13,10,000, Hence Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.1714/B/2016 & 1364/Bang/2017 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited. 2. The Grounds Raised For Both The Appeals Are Identical. The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Ground Vide Letter Dated 27.11.2021.The Additional Grounds Are Essentially, Shades Of Grounds Raised In Form No.36. The Additional Grounds Are Legal Grounds Supported By Judicial Pronouncements & Does Not Require Examination Of New Facts Other Than On Record. Hence, The Additional Grounds Raised Are Taken On Record For Adjudication. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arising Out Of The Order Of The A.O. Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

order, the A.O. had disallowed depreciation of Rs.1,21,46,113. 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, raising sixteen grounds and also various additional grounds. The issues raised in the grounds raised in Form No.36 and the additional grounds

M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Ramanagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1714/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8908/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ultra Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-2, Top Floor, Suneja Chamber, Circle-27(1), Alaknanda Commercial Complex, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu0117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,06,078/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 10.01.2018 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dcit, Central Circle (2), Mumbai Dated 5Th February, 2016 Wherein It Was Informed That Shri Shirish C. Shah, Who Happened To Be The Main Person Engaged In Providing Bogus Accommodation Entries Through The Companies Directly/Indirectly Controlled By Him & The Assessee Company Has Received Accommodation Entry Of Rs.25 Lakhs From M/S Dhanus Technologies Ltd., The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons And, Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

validity of reassessment proceedings as well as addition on merit. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. AO and impugned

Rakesh Kumar Pawa, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 8059/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Rakesh Kumar Pawa, Vs Acit, E-21,Park Lane, Circle-18, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Agrpp6439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the AO. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to page 13 of the paper book, drew the attention of the notice issued

Kumar Engineering Works, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2919/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2006-07 Kumar Engineering Works, Vs Acit, B-38, Gt Karnal Road, Circle-20(1), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfk6388K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings as well as the addition on merit. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in upholding

Yenepoya Food and Beverages India Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Mangalore

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

ITA 567/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D’souzaFor Respondent: Sri.Kiran D, Addl.CIT-DR

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

I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 6. 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

Mr. Varun Prabhakar, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 548/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for dept

disallowed the cost of improvement of Rs.1,64,232/-. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. Mr. Varun Prabhakar, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 5. I heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld A.R invited my attention

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2681/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgul, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

source u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The facts relating to the above said issue are stated in brief. During the year under consideration, the assessee paid following charges

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

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

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

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

Bharat Bansal, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Noida

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

ITA 2660/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16 Bharat Bansal, Vs Acit, 702, 7Th Floor, Mahagun Marvella, Circle-1, Sector-78, Noida, Noida. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aehpb3558F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.S. Nagar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chourasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chourasia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

granted, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order. He submitted that given

Manish Kumar Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

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

ITA 1795/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Divyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: adjournment application

Section 143(3)Section 249(1)(a)

Section 249(1)(a) of the Act and held that appeal of the assessee is not maintainable. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the assessee to support its appeal

ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi vs. Nagina Judge, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the Cross

ITA 1016/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153A

deleted the impugned addition in toto on merits. 6. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A) on merits, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also simultaneously impugned the order of the CIT(A) on legal aspects in its Cross Objection. 7. When the matter

M/S Inderjit Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 32/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR

Section 131(1)(d)

therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the ld.CIT(A) Bathinda has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action

Church'S Auxiliary for Social Action, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5539/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Tulsiyan, CA, Shri AnjaniFor Respondent: Ms Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12(3)Section 12ASection 5Section 80GSection 80G(2)Section 80G(2)(d)

Officer is upheld. 6 In result the appeal is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following concise grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether the Ld CIT(A) is justified by upholding the order of assessing officer

National Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 734/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 154Section 234Section 234ASection 250

response from the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) confirmed the orders of the A.O. ex parte. Against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years, raising following identical grounds:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]-11, Bengaluru, passed under