“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, Ward- 22(4), New Delhi vs. Satvik Logistics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 6306/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish SachdevaFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 68

6306/Del./2018 M/s. Satvik Logistics 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. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 6701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

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

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 194CSection 2(22)(e)Section 68Section 69

Assessing Officer for both the Assessment Years. 11. Aggrieved with such orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- Grounds of appeal of ITA No.6700/Del/2016 (AY 2010-11) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessee by deleting all the additions. 17. The Revenue contested the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) by filing an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the deletion of the additions. In the said proceedings, the appellant- assessee made an oral application under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules and urged

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 6700/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

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

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 194CSection 2(22)(e)Section 68Section 69

M/S. Benchmark Infotech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, And Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(A)Section 153ASection 2Section 271Section 271A

No.3067/Del/2016 M/s. Benchmark Infotech (P) Ltd., Gurgaon. 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 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Raman Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Meerut

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

ITA 991/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

proceedings. 3 ITA.No.991/Del./2021 Shri Raman Kumar, Meerut. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in the interest of justice assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case

Sunil Prakash, Faridabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 727/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunil Prakash, Vs. Dcit, C/O Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension Part-1, Bengaluru. New Delhi. Pan: Afvpp5777K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th May, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Diesel Generating Set & Also Is A Contractor. He Filed His Return Of Income On 30.11.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.6,97,72,959/-. The Cpc, Bangalore, Issued Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 15Th December, 2019 Making An Addition Of Rs.1,43,36,615/- For Late Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao On The Ground That Although The Payment Has Been Made Before Due Date Of Filing Of The Return, But, Same Has Not Been Deposited Within The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)

deposited within the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Rajbir Singh, Jhajjar vs. ITO Ward - 5, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8894/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 69A

ITA.No.8894/Del./2019 Shri Rajbir Singh, Jhajjar. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite issue of notice under section

Pramod Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6248/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148

under : 4 ITA.No.6248/Del./2019 Shri Pramod Kumar, Gurgaon. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 5 ITA.No.6248/Del./2019 Shri Pramod Kumar, Gurgaon. 6 ITA.No.6248/Del./2019 Shri Pramod Kumar, Gurgaon

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3790/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3423/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) (Through Video Conferencing) M/S Dabur India Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, New Delhi Range-10 (Appellant) New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92C

assessee in its return of income. The assessee in present appeal, vide letter dated 29.04.2019 has raised an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal seeking to claim deduction of ESOPs expenses under Section 37 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that this issue is covered in favour ... offered to tax as part of taxable income. The assessee, in present appeal, vide letter dated 29.04.2019 has raised an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal seeking to claim that such subsidy is in the nature of capital receipt, not exigible to tax and therefore, the same

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3423/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Section 143Section 92C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ambreen Projects & Infrastrcture (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4037/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69B

crores. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 2.2 Aggrieved with the finding of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through Videoconferencing facility. The assessee filed a paper-book containing 169 pages

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Vimal Moulders India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3122/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 68

hereby confirmed. Hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed.” 4.3 Aggrieved with such relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed the CO by raising the following grounds:- 14 CO No.128/Del/2018 Ground of appeal

Robin Singh Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7074/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs Acit, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepc9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2012- 13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Long-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 28Th July, 2012 Declaring The Total Income At Rs2,61,98,009/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Shown An Income Of Rs.2,46,33,865/- Under The Head ‘Long- Term Capital Gain.’ The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,05,71,400/- On Account Of Investment In Two Properties. The Calculation Of The Cost Of Acquisition Of The New Property As Submitted By The Assessee & Reproduced By The Ao Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 54

justified for want of proper bills and vouchers. 4 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1) That the learned CIT (A) has erred on the facts and in law in disallowing the exemption

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vision Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Noida

ITA 4461/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D. R

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

Appeals) held that order was correctly passed under Section 153C of the act. 17. The Revenue then preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the said proceedings under Section 154 on the ground that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was in fact order under Section

Super Snacks Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. CPC Itd, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 998/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2019-20] Super Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, 13, Alipur Road, Bangalore Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 Pan-Aabcs3811R Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

statutory due dates prescribed under PF and ESI Act. 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. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that

Anil Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7723/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Anil Kumar Sharma, Vs. Acit, E-549, 2Nd Floor, Gk-Ii, Circle-14(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Abnps4195C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyendra Kumar Chaturvedi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Satyendra Kumar ChaturvediFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

other expenses. The appellant gets a relief of Rs.3 lakhs.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 3 “1. That ld. CIT(A)-5, New Delhi, has erred by confirming the addition of Rs.4

Himanshu Technologies Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7905/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “New Legal ground numbered as ground no 1 1. That the initiation of reassessment proceedings

M/S. Ndr Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2981/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

uphold the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. 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 iaw the CIT(A) was incorrect

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tirupati Constwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6687/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 68

deleted. Ground raised in appeal is allowed.” 12. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

M/S. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1137/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2006-07 Interarch Building Vs. Dcit Products Pvt. Ltd., Circle -11 (1) Farm No.8 Khasra New Delhi No.56/23/2, Dera Mandi Village, Mehrauli New Delhi-110047 Pan No.Aaaci0106J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80ISection 94

partly allowed by the Ld. first appellate authority i.e. Ld.CIT(A). Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds and additional ground as reproduced above. 6. Before us the parties appeared through videoconferencing facility. The assessee filed a paper