← 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

Shibani Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result all this piece of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3143/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda

For Appellant: Shri Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

Assessing Officer. 3 I.T.A. No.3143 to 3146/DEL/2015 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the penalty sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. counsel for the assessee filed the order of the Tribunal in the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Poonam Hassija Neha Hassija, New Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the Revenue on the issue of salary expenses is dismissed

ITA 3429/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Poonam Hassija Neha Hassija, Circle-27(1), 45, Community Centre, New Delhi. Naraina Phase I, New Delhi. Pan: Aajfp3787C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th March, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-24, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Consolidated Order Dated 4Th May, 2018, Vide Ita Nos.4320/Del/2011, 5545/Del/2012 & 3429/Del/2014 For Ays 2008-09 To 2010-11, Respectively. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.723 To 725/Del/2018, Order Dated 12Th February, 2021 For Ays 2008-09 To 2010-11, Recalled Its Order For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating The Ground Relating To Disallowance Of Salary & Staff Welfare Expenses. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 22

mentioned expenses as claimed by the appellant in its return.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

undisclosed sources is unwarranted. 11. Appeal is, therefore, allowed”. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

undisclosed sources is unwarranted. 11. Appeal is, therefore, allowed”. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

undisclosed sources is unwarranted. 11. Appeal is, therefore, allowed”. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

undisclosed sources is unwarranted. 11. Appeal is, therefore, allowed”. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: 1) Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Guarantee Fees
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

Rs.27.83 crores. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A), held the rate of 0.822% as reasonable guarantee fee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue stands in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

ACIT, Cir.-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6402/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: 1) Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Guarantee Fees
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

Rs.27.83 crores. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A), held the rate of 0.822% as reasonable guarantee fee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue stands in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

J. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7203/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

relief in respect of other additions, however sustained the addition of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 81.98 lakhs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3 ITA 7203/Mum/2019 3. Before us the parties appeared through videoconference facility . The learned counsel

S.G Asia Holding (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Cir-4(2), One Indiabulls Centre, 1102, 11Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Tower 2, 841, Jupiter Mills, Vs. Senapatibapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaecs 2909 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr.Ajit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that in the quantum appeal, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal being ITA No. 2399/M/2009 order dated 22.04.2015 thereby partly allowing appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, the Department/Revenue filed appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court being

Kaksh Impex Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the additions made in all these appeals are deleted and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 223/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153A

respective assessment years Ground 5 to 9 are dismissed 3. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. 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. Commissioner of Income

Spr Foods, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6352/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 40

after considering the submissions of the assessee and material available on record, sustained the addition. 6. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there is no reason to interfere in the finding

ACIT, CC- 3, New Delhi vs. Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4401/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd., Central Circle-3, 14/3, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Village- Mewla Maharajpur, Faridabad. Pan: Aaacj1872C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th April, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-23, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel/Tubes & Pipes & Erection Fabrication Work & Furnace Unit. It Filed Its Return Of Income 12.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,52,26,930/-. A Search & Seizure Proceedings U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Conducted In The Case Of M/S Mauria Udyog Ltd. & Its Group Concerns Including The Assessee & Residential/Factory Premises Of The Partners, Directors & Proprietors Of The Group On 7Th August, 2013. In Response To The Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 12Th September, 2015 Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,52,26,930/- Which Is The Same Income As Per The Original Return Of Income Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

made on this account in this year is also deleted.” 10. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is not correct in law and on facts ... wherein similar additions were made by the AO on account of sale of shares of the same parties. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, vide ITA No.6660/Del/2016, order dated 29.11.2018 deleted the addition. In the present case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lepro Herbals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 145

111/Del./2016 M/s. Lepro Herbals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ITO -32(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Liberal Realtors Limited Liability Partnership, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 450/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

given a favourable report in his remand proceedings, then fairly the Revenue ought not to have preferred any further appeal before this Tribunal as there could not be any grievance for them. 3.1. We draw support in this regard on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court ... Rs.4,08,841/-, as 'non-agricultural income' was incorrect. 17. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the CIT (A), the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the stand taken by the Revenue and affirmed the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. The order passed by the Tribunal

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Businss of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 14A

supra) while interpreting Section 14A of the Act in the context of the test of presumption as arising in the appeal before the Tribunal. For the purposes of this order, we are not taking into account the above decisions as they were not cited at the hearing before the Tribunal

Imperial Auto Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

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

ITA 5924/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 80I

appellant will get part relief on this account.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, drew the attention of the Bench to the ground No.6 raised by the assessee

Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range - 4, New Delhi

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

ITA 5891/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr
Section 10Section 14A

this issue. Therefore, Ground no. 3 is dismissed.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed the following chart and submitted that neither the A.O. nor the Ld. CIT(A) have analyzed

Gupta International, Panipat vs. ITO(TDS), Karnal

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

ITA 5762/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

deposited in the year when it has accrued and shown in the commission account.” 5. Aggrieved with such order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned

Sri. Nagaraj Venkataramanappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 458/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 44A

submissions made in the petition, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee ... made above said additions and the same was also confirmed by Ld CIT(A). Hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.0 The first issue relates to the disallowance of Rs.15.00 lakhs out of landscaping expenses. During the scrutiny proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee