← 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

Sri Ganraj Buildcon Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT (OSD) Ward - 24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1760/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Ganraj Buildcon Private Ltd., Vs. Acit (Osd), H-255, Phase-I, Ward-24(2), Ashok Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aavcs3068C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2021 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 18Th February, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Notice Issued Through Registry Was Returned Unserved By The Postal Authorities With The Remark “Left Without Address.” Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.26,22,300/- Made By The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961. 4. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Real-Estate Developers, Builders, Engineers, Surveyors, Contractors, Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 28Th March, 2017 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.32,840/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For The Following Reasons:- “(I) “High Cash In Hand Shown In Balance Sheet As Compared To Preceding Year & Return Of Income Filed After 07.11.2016. Whether Cash In Hand Shown In Return Of Income Is Correct” & (Ii) “Large Investment In Property As Compared To Total Income & Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

passed by him, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. I find, the AO in the instant case, made addition of Rs.26

Ranvik Exports Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1677/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Ranvik Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 403, 2Nd Floor, Near Metro Station, Cpc, Pillar No.119, Mg Road, Bangalore. Ghitorni, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr3800L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2021 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 11Th September, 2020 Of The Cit(A), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. It Is Seen That The Notice Issued Through Rpad Has Come Back On The Ground That The House Of The Assessee Is Locked On Visit By The Postal Authorities On Several Days. Since The Assessee Has Not Intimated Change Of Address, If Any, Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Disposed Of On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Various Disallowances Made By The Cpc.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 37Section 43B

Form No. 3CD. Therefore, this disallowance is hereby confirmed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case section 143(1) did not give mandate

Today Realty P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 6464/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Today Realty P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, C-28, Gf, Panchsheel Enclave, Ward-25(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct8999G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Tulsian, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 30Th June, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.33,50,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The It Act, 1961. 3. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal. Earlier, The Tribunal Had Dismissed The Appeal For Want Of Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.761/Del/2019, Order Dated 26Th February, 2021, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Tulsian, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

passed by him, sustained the addition made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that due to non-receipt of notice

M/S. Indo Japan Agro Tech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 26/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Indo Japan Agro Tech Ltd., Vs. Ito, 100-A, Cycle Market, Ward-12(2), Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaci8493G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th October, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Not Allowing Deduction For Rs.21,00,000/- Being The Amount Of Expenditure Incurred On Research & Development. The Action Being Arbitrary, Erroneous & Unlawful Must Be Quashed With Directions For Relief.” 3. This Appeal Was Earlier, Dismissed By The Tribunal For Want Of Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.604/Del/2019, Order Dated 5Th March, 2021, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A). Referring to para 4.8 and 4.9 of the order