“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

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

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

ITA 733/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

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

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

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

ITA 732/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

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

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

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

ITA 731/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

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

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

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

ITA 730/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

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

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

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

ITA 729/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

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

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

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

ITA 728/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

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

DCIT Internationa Taxation Circle, Gurgaon vs. Charu Agarwal, Gurgaon

ITA 1794/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18 Charu Agarwal, Vs Dcit (International Taxation), Tower B-3, Flat 1203, Circle Gurgaon. Parsvnath Exotica, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Aclpa8443J Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. Charu Agarwal, Circle Gurgaon. Tower B-3, Flat 1203, Parsvnath Exotica, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Aclpa8443J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th May, 2020 Of

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

totaling to Rs.3,84,963/-. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- Assessee’s Appeal (ITA No.1367/Del/2020) “1) Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts

Charu Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation) Circle, Gurgaon

ITA 1367/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

ADIT Infratel Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), New Delhi

In the result ground number 1-3 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 289/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Adit Infratel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-45/27, Dlf City, Phase-1, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002` New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl6812B Assessee By : Ms. Manisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Lahoti, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 80Section 80I

During the year 2012-13, the ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The appellant has argued that the action of AO in not allowing its claim u/s 80IC in spite of order

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4643/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. C. N. Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4643/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. P C Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153A

subsequent uncontroverted self-declaration specifically puts any such doubt to rest.” ACIT vs. Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal 7 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- (i) The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and fact. (ii) On the facts

M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, Hubli vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, The Assistant Post Box No. 30, Director Of Income Samyukta Karnataka, Tax, Koppikar Road, Cpc, Hubli – 580 020. Bangalore Vs. Pan: Aaatl1086H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, In So Far As Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Is Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Adding The Amount Of Delayed

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar, CA

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

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

Sivan Securities Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 708/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Sivan Securities Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 23/2, Coffeeday Square, Income Tax, Vittal Mallya Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaccs5138G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.10.2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Law Applicable To It. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,05,657/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 143(1)(A)(Ii) Of The Act, Holding That The Said Amount Is Assessable Under The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA

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

Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 361/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers, Ub City, 1 Circle - 3(1)(1), Vittal Malya Road, Ub City, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aadcn 7689 L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

total income of the assessee in the final Assessment Order by the AO against which the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 10. We shall take up for consideration ground No.4 raised by the assessee as a preliminary ground as it goes to the root

Income Tax Oficer Ward-1, Bidar vs. Sri Rajkumar Agarwal, Hyderabad

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

ITA 3441/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)

individual capacity.” 7 ITA Nos.3441-3421/Bang/2018 Sri.Rajkumar Agarwal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing before us, the learned AR submitted that the assessee has raised issue relating to application of section

Shri. Rajkumar Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bidar

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

ITA 3421/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Hanchnal, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)

Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Core Objects India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

final assessment order dated 28.12.2018. 12. Against the final Order of Assessment, assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds that were pressed for adjudication before the Tribunal were ground No.9(a) of the grounds of appeal, with regard to working capital adjustment. Ground No.11 with regard

Mahender Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 394/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the source of cash deposited was stated to be out of past savings and income

Sai Milan, New Delhi vs. ITO (E)- Ward 2(1), New Delhi

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 4239/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)

learned CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, against this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned DR submitted that the assessee trust has been thoroughly negligent and did not provide the supporting evidence before the assessing authority. Moreover, before

Poonam Lifestyle, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 852/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Poonam Lifestyle, Income Tax Officer-4(3), 201 Panchratna, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai Mama Marg, Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aajfp 5119 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2022

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR

Section 68

issued first notice 02.01.2018 and thereafter issued three notices on 28.08.2018, 21.09,2018 and 18.09.2019. Now, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal seeking restoration of the appeal to Ld. CIT(A). Poonam Lifestyle 3 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion

Manchi Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha, Bantwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mangaluru

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

ITA 704/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manchi Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha, 67, Manchi Kukkaje, The Income Tax Manchi Bantwala, Officer, Dakshina Kannada, Ward – 2, Putturu – 574 323, Mangaluru. Vs. Karnataka. Pan: Aaaam4199F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravish Rao, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing The Deduction Claimed By The Cooperative Society Of Z. 60,91,244/- Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) & The Learned First Appellate Authority Has Erred In Confirming The Orders Of The Assessing Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CA

Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

operative Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT 397 ITR 1 (SC). Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the rival submissions. Page 5 of 8 On ground Nos.1 to 3, the Ld. A.R. submitted that