“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

Sobha Nagasandra Apartment Owners Welfare Association, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 769/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.H.V.Gowthamma, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

taxable under the head income from other sources. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee along with the appeal memo has produced copy of the bye-laws of the assessee-society, computation of income and expenditure statement

Shri Sunil Bandacharya Joshi, Bangaloe vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2304/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Preethi Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR 4 Sri.Sunil Bandacharya Joshi. submitted that the A.O. has solely disallowed the assessee’s claim and taxed Rs.60 lakh

Sri Mohan Puri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2925/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni. JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54Section 69A

confirmed most of the disallowances made by the A.O. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a paper book comprising of 97 pages enclosing therein the sale agreement dated 16.03.2014 for transfer of amenities

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka State Industrial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 788/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2009-10 Ito, Vs. M/S. Karnataka State Industrial Co-Operative Ward – 3(1), Bank Ltd., Bengaluru. No.11, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaaat 3503 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2014 Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. This Appeal Was Dismissed By This Tribunal By Order Dated 14.01.2016 On The Ground That The Tax Effect Involved In The Appeal Was Less Than Rs.10 Lakhs & By Following The Cbdt Circular No.21/2015 Laying Down The Monetary Limit For Filing The Appeals By The Department. The Revenue Filed Appeal Before Hon’Ble High Court In Ita No.502/2016 & The Hon’Ble High Court In Order Dated 27.01.2021 Held That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Of The Department Was More Than Rs.10 Lakhs & Therefore The Tribunal Should Decide The Appeal Of The Revenue On Merits. Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 36

contingent and consequently the claim made by the assessee was allowed. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as contained in the ground of appeal filed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (As Successor in Business of Erstwhile Ing Vysya Bank Limited), Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the grounds of appeal of the assessee remanded by the High Court for fresh consideration are allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)

confirmed certain additions made by the AO. Against the additions that were confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and against the relief allowed by the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue was ITA No.733/Bang/2011

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S the Vysya Bank Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the grounds of appeal of the assessee remanded by the High Court for fresh consideration are allowed

ITA 733/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)

Shri Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

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

ITA 7976/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.7975/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No.7976/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd., Vs Acit, J-1/202, Dda Flats, Kalkaji, Central Circle-16, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb1192M Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

deleted the addition made on account of seized material of Rs.18,03,380/-. The revenue has not preferred an appeal before the Tribunal owing to low tax effect. 4. With regard to the addition which has been repeated in the order passed u/s 153A pertaining to Rs.18

Shri Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

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

ITA 7975/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

Adm Agro Industries Latur and Vizag Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4446/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Adm Agro Industries Latur & Vizag Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., (Previously Known As Tinna Circle-1(2), Oil & Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.), New Delhi-110002. B-1, Khaitan House, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aaact0700F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv. Respondent By Mrs. Alka Gautam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 32(2)

this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ground No. 1 to 5 are against legality of the action for rectifying the mistake. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 2742/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Herbalife International India Vs. Dcit - 11(4), Private Limited, Bengaluru. Pardhanani Wilshire #14, Commissariat Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaach 8025 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.08.2018 Of Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Nos.2 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

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

applied by the AO.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned Counsel for the assessee while relying on the stand taken in the grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal, primarily relied

M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 504/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Vijay Samraj Hotels P. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 18, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Gandhinagar, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcv4731B Appellant Respondent Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By : Advocate & Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca : Shri Raghavendra Rao, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.07.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Bengaluru Karnataka Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Advocate & Ms. Sunaina

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Finance Act, 2021 and 43B of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5.1 The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue is decided by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in following cases wherein the amendment has been held

Uberoi Sood & Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2642/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 198Section 199

ITA.No.2642/Del./2018 Uberoi Sood & Kapoor, New Delhi. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “1. THAT in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order

Sudipta Basu, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 52(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1870/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sudipta Basu, Vs. Ito, C/O Rohit Tiwari, Ward-52(4), 8024, Ats Green Paradiso, New Delhi. Ch-Iv, Greater Noida, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201310. Pan: Aagpb2606K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR

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

action of the AO is justified. The appeal is dismissed.” 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 and in law, the Order passed

S R Metal Company, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4611/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

appeal nos. 1, 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon. CIT (Appeals

Amal Allana, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 4371/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 154Section 22Section 24

assessee. Therefore, the ground no. 2 is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in holding the action

Anil Arora, Delhi vs. Ityo, Ward-63(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2544/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

deleted the addition of Rs.4,08,294/-. 3. Aggrieved with such 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 learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Unicare Developer & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2303/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Unicare Developer & Infrastructure Vs. Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(1), 71/7A, Ff, Rama Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcu3616N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “On facts and circumstances of the case the Learned A.O. as well as , the Ld. CIT(A) have erred

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jpm Tools Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7281/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

record, as such, the finding so recorded by lower authority based on documentary evidences need be upheld”: “8. Revenue, when they preferred the appeal before the tribunal, did not file requisite papers and documents to support their contention that the finding recorded by the CIT(Appeals) was factually incorrect

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jpm Tools Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7280/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jjf Casting Ltd (Formerly Known As Jpm Renewable Energy Ltd), Delhi

ITA 7278/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A