“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

Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3715/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 705, 7Th Floor, Manjusha Building, Circle-19(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaecp3680L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th July, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-31, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application Seeking Adjournment Of The Appeal Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That Although The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On Various Dates, No One Was Appearing. Further, The Notices Sent By Rpad Were Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘Left.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Further, The Notice Was Directed To Be Served By The Revenue & The Departmental Notice Server Who Was Deputed To Serve The Dasti Summons Has Reported That The Premise Of The Assessee Was Closed & No One Was Residing There For Which The Notice Was Fixed At The Gate Of The Assessee Company. The Report Of The Notice Server Is Also Placed On Record. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 30Section 37(1)Section 68

report and rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed

Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6524/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6524/Del/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

appeal the assessee did not get any relief from the CIT(A) against the imposition of the penalty. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing. Accordingly, matter was proceeded ex parte. 6. We have taken note

M/S. Royal Inframart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2921/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

2921/Del./2017 M/s. Royal Inframart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 6 ITA.No.2921/Del./2017 M/s. Royal Inframart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 1. That order made

ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Thermal Project Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, captioned appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7862/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen , CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the revenue of CIT(A), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal, 4. The Ld. CIT(DR) for Revenue relied upon the findings of the AO. 5. None appeared for the assessee. 6. We have

Srinivas Achar Mohankumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 568/BANG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mahesh Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 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 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

M/S. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 565/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR

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

made by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory in nature and hence they will have 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

Rohit Narang, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.3025/Del

ITA 3026/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri T.Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri T.Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 3Section 40

upheld the action of the A.O. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “1. That the assessment order is bad in law on the facts of the case. 5 ITA.No.3025 & 3026/Del./2016 Shri

Rohit Narang, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.3025/Del

ITA 3025/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri T.Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri T.Kipgen, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 3Section 40

Maf Clothing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR

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

M/S. Fashion Matrix Clothing, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 550/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

Mavinahalli Shivananjappa Vijay Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 597/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Hegde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

following the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 to sec.36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that an identical issue has been examined by the co-ordinate bench ... finally dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissionis. We find that the issue raised in this appeal whether there could be disallowance of Employees share of ESI/PF paid

Anantpur Kalpana, Gangavathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Anantpur Kalpana, Vs. Ito, 1/1/1, Mahalaxmi Enterprises, Ward – 1, Hosakeri, Building Bamboo Bazar, Koppal. Gangavathi – 583 227, Karnataka. Pan : Clepk 8005 L Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 16.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. She Is Proprietrix Of A Business In The Name & Style Of Mahalaxmi Enterprises. The Business Consists Of Dealing In Beedi, Tea Powder & Pan Masala. For Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,49,520/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That There Were Several Cash Deposits In The Two Bank Accounts Of The Assessee. Out Of The Aforesaid Cash Deposits, The Ao Culled Out, The Deposits That Was Made Of Bank Notes That Were Declared As Not Legal Tender Owing To Demonetization Of Currency. The Details Of The Total Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In Her Bank Account & The Cash Deposits Of Cash/Currency Notes That Were Declared As Not Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 115BSection 68

Page 5 of 8 accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the AO and CIT(A) accepted the fact

Turner Builders & Promoters Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 25(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 184/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

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

Section 2(14)(b)

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in subjecting to tax the sale proceeds

Shikhar Development Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 131/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 36

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 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 the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining

Vps Infratech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 127/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant submits the present appeal challenging the propriety, legality

Sohiab, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3863/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition on merit. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following ground:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. lower authorities has grossly

Vinod Kumar Suneja, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5028/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

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

Section 68

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. I find from the bank account of Sh. Kanishk

M/S. Uppinangady Co-Operative Agricultural Society Limited, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Puttur

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

ITA 1207/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. As regards the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is concerned, the learned AR submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the latest judgment

Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Housing Federation Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2874/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Sandeep, CA & Sri.Vignesh, CA

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

allowed by the CIT(A). 4. The Department being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the Department read as follows: “1. The order of the Learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case

ITO (E), Ward-1(2), New Delhi vs. Indian Youth Centre Trust, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6408/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6407 & 6408/Del/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)(vi)

benefits. Grounds of appeal nos. 2 to 6 are allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A) the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. When the matter was called for hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the controversy involved