← All Phrases

“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. Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghavendra Maya, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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

Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 178/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.178/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ajmera Aditya Summit, No.3D1, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1)(1), 7Th C Main Road, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aacca 5309 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
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 the concise grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal which was argued before

Shri. P. Krishna Reddy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1945/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

building consisting of few units used as independent residential units. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) has misunderstood the facts and the legal provision due to the following

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

ITA 906/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

restricted to Rs.38,52,454/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld. CIT (A), the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal wherein it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that plea taken by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) was never taken before

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

ITA 905/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

restricted to Rs.38,52,454/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld. CIT (A), the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal wherein it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that plea taken by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) was never taken before

Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

ITA 904/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

restricted to Rs.38,52,454/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld. CIT (A), the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal wherein it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that plea taken by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) was never taken before

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Godrej Developers Pvt Ltd (Now Amalgamated With Godrej Project Development Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4520/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

with the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal . 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in deleting

Marappa Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 696/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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

M/S Nature Bio Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4012/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Move adjournment application
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

However, no relief was made available to the assessee by the First Appellate Authority either. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that sans of arguments to be advanced

Haradanahally Chennappa Reddy Arunamma, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 683/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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

Sri. Shamanna Nagamma Balasubramany, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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 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

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 670/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 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 4 M/s.Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order

M/S. Methods (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 558/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gopinath C.H., CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 438Section 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

Billinkote Ramakrishnaiah Jagadeesh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 405/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 115BSection 68

confirmed both the Billinkote Ramakrishnaiah Jagadeesh, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 additions and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. With regard to the cash credit, addition of Rs.23 lakhs, the Ld. A.R. submitted that it is an opening balance brought forward from the earlier year

Vbhdc Bangalore Value Homes Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 1368/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)

cent is held to be justified and is confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition to admit additional evidence. The additional evidence which is sought to be admitted is a certificate

M/S. Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 2702/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aadca2415P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order 12.10.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Revised & Modified Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Acusis Software India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Appellant). Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao'] Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

exclusion by assessee in the present case have been dealt as under. “9. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed the appeal before the tribunal. At the time of hearing, learned AR argued grounds of appeal and reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The learned AR submitted

M/S Fortune Rpj Developers, Thane vs. ACIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 478/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)

upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the sole ground reproduced above. 3. Before us the learned counsel of the assessee filed a paper book containing pages

Shri. Kirit J Kadecha, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6504/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2004-05 ) Shri Kirit Kadecha, Room No.1, Sai Sadan, Roshan Nagar, Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aghpk-4337-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito-32(2)(2), Room No.108, 1St Floor, C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smitha Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha Nair
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

issue in appeal before the CIT(A) assailing levy of penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee, hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessee has assailed levy of penalty on merits as well as on the legal ground pointing defect in the notice

Sri. P Anand Vardhan Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 664/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 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

Sri. P Anand Vardhan Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 663/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43E

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