← 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

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 6407/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

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

Vijayshree Food Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 587/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle-30, E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv4721C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th December, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Export Of Tobacco Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014 Declaring The Loss Of Rs.18,78,467/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 26Th November, 2014 At The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reassessment proceedings and also upheld the addition on merit. 7. 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 in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) New Delhi New Delhi

ACIT Circlie-19, New Delhi vs. Pawan Kansal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 830/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen CIT/DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

dated 08.08.2016, ld. CIT(A) deleted all the three additions that were challenged in the first appellate proceedings. Against such finding, Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 6361/Del/2016, challenging the deletion of Rs.59,24,490/- on account of under valuation of finished stock and by order dated

ITO (E), Ward- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Shri Swami Satyanand Dharmarth Trust, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2468/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 70

allowed excess application brought forward from earlier years as well as claim of depreciation of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through videoconferencing facility. 4. Before us the Learned DR relied

Anita Khatri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 98/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

considered as addition u/s 69A of the Act. 6. 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 in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT (Appeals] erred

Anita Khatri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 97/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

considered as addition u/s 69A of the Act. 6. 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 in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT (Appeals] erred

Jagesh Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 9638/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

separately. (Addition of Rs.23,76,710/-) 6. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance of the assessee before

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uflex Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1855/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri S. Najmi [CIT] – D. R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

though has been decided in favour of the assessee in the group concern by the ld. CIT (Appeals), however, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal therefore, he held that its revenue receipt and hence taxble. Moreover, the assessee itself has shown revenue receipt and credited in the profit ... shall after giving the applicant the opportunity of being heard, reject the application and inform the industrial unit accordingly. (d) Subject to an appeal to the Tribunal under section 57 the order passed by the Commissioner in this behalf, shall be final. (4) The industrial unit availing or granted benefit

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri S. Najmi [CIT] – D. R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

though has been decided in favour of the assessee in the group concern by the ld. CIT (Appeals), however, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal therefore, he held that its revenue receipt and hence taxble. Moreover, the assessee itself has shown revenue receipt and credited in the profit ... shall after giving the applicant the opportunity of being heard, reject the application and inform the industrial unit accordingly. (d) Subject to an appeal to the Tribunal under section 57 the order passed by the Commissioner in this behalf, shall be final. (4) The industrial unit availing or granted benefit

Maxx Solutions, Gurgaon vs. CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1032/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20 Maxx Solutions, Vs. Cpc, 958-960, Tower Bi, Bengaluru. 9Th Floor, Sapaze It Park, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon. Pan: Aavfm7455N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26Th October, 2019 Declaring Total Income At Rs.18,50,524/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 06.03.2020 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.5,78,203/- Was Made As Per Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A), Relying On Various Decisions, Upheld The Action Of The Ao. 3. Aggrieved With Such Order Of The Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal By Raising The Following Grounds:- “ The Ld. Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming Addition Of Rs.5,78,203/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 Without Any Base.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

relying on various decisions, upheld the action of the AO. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “ The Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in confirming addition of Rs.5

Northern India Trading Co, New Delhi vs. Dcitcpc, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1956/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Northern India Trading Co., Vs. Dcit, C/O Ssar & Associates, Ca, Cpc, 4852/24, Ff Ansari Road, Bengaluru. Near Sanjivan Hospital, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Pan: Aahfn1944R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

various decisions, upheld the action of the CPC, Bangalore. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That both the lower authorities were not justified in making and confirming the assessment order

Balbir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6388/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

ITA.No.6388/Del./2019 Shri Balbir Singh, New Delhi. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. I find the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision in the case

Nanda Deep Associates Pvt. Ltd/ Company, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3597/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

assessment proceedings and the addition on merit. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. I find the A.O. in the instant case reopened the assessment of the assessee

Davinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3587/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54

upheld the action of the A.O. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. I find from the details that the assessee had purchased a property for Rs.35

Munni, Noida vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3420/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 Munni, Vs. Ito, H.No.26, Sharfabad, Ward-1(4), Sector-73, Ghaziabad. Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Elbpm5603R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vineet Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(21)Section 69A

nonest being defective by observing as under:- 2 3 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a farmer having income from agricultural operations only and there

Mohil Estates Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3397/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Mohil Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 22, Ssi, Industrial Area, Ward-5(4), Iind Floor, Gt Karnal Road, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaecm5516C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 9. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. I have also gone through the various decisions relied

Kapil Dev Marwaha, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 3183/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 147Section 271

decisions and upheld the addition made by the A.O. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.3183/Del./2019 Shri Kapil Dev Marwaha, Delhi. 7. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. I find

Gehna Precious Metal Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1772/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R
Section 14ASection 79

upheld the action of the A.O. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the orders of the authorities below. I find the A.O. in the instant case made addition

Heidelberg Cement India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

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

ITA 5822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv.&For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.DR

appeal, the CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance made ... technical knowhow and allowed depreciation on the same. We find, against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide ITA No.2054/Del/2016, order dated 31.10.2019, for AY 2011-12 decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that

Transoarent Agro Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 25(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6277/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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. 9 ITA.No.6277/Del./2019 Transparent Agro Private Limited, Mehrauli, New Delhi. 6. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. I find