← 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

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6953/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

agreement between the assessee and its parent company. The agreement is dated 15.12.2001. This issue of payment of royalty was subject matter the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No. 2128/Del/2011 order dated 17.12.2020. 18. The relevant portion of the order ... permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5538/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

agreement between the assessee and its parent company. The agreement is dated 15.12.2001. This issue of payment of royalty was subject matter the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No. 2128/Del/2011 order dated 17.12.2020. 18. The relevant portion of the order ... permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income

Haryana Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4072/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) making an addition of Rs. 78.97 crores to the total income of the assessee. While preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the objection that the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of the non-existent or merged entity SPIL

Haryana Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4071/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) making an addition of Rs. 78.97 crores to the total income of the assessee. While preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the objection that the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of the non-existent or merged entity SPIL

Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4070/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) making an addition of Rs. 78.97 crores to the total income of the assessee. While preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the objection that the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of the non-existent or merged entity SPIL

Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank), Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak

ITA 4069/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) making an addition of Rs. 78.97 crores to the total income of the assessee. While preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the objection that the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of the non-existent or merged entity SPIL

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1770/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

ground of appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.” 3. Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : BECAUSE on a conjoint reading of section 153A and 132(1) and on the facts and circumstances

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1769/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

ground of appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.” 3. Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : BECAUSE on a conjoint reading of section 153A and 132(1) and on the facts and circumstances

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1768/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

ground of appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.” 3. Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : BECAUSE on a conjoint reading of section 153A and 132(1) and on the facts and circumstances

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1767/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

ground of appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.” 3. Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : BECAUSE on a conjoint reading of section 153A and 132(1) and on the facts and circumstances

Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.1766/Del

ITA 1766/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

ground of appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.” 3. Aggrieved with such Order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : BECAUSE on a conjoint reading of section 153A and 132(1) and on the facts and circumstances

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5994/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

agreement between the assessee and its parent company. The agreement is dated 15.12.2001. This issue of payment of royalty was subject matter the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No. 2128/Del/2011 order dated 17.12.2020. 18. The relevant portion of the order ... permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2260/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

agreement between the assessee and its parent company. The agreement is dated 15.12.2001. This issue of payment of royalty was subject matter the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No. 2128/Del/2011 order dated 17.12.2020. 18. The relevant portion of the order ... permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income

M/S Expeditors International (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2242/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

agreement between the assessee and its parent company. The agreement is dated 15.12.2001. This issue of payment of royalty was subject matter the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No. 2128/Del/2011 order dated 17.12.2020. 18. The relevant portion of the order ... permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income

Asha Rani Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-7(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8784/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Asha Rani Gupta, Vs Ito, 9/9, South Patel Nagar, Ward-7(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Ahxpg4460G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 02.09.2019 Of The Cit(A)-3, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice Through Rpad. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 144

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). It is an admitted fact

Abdul Nasir, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8630/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Abdul Nasir, Vs Ito, 7900, Gali Haji Mehboob Wali, Ward-63(2), Mohalla Shaikhan, New Delhi. Sadar Bazar (Nai Basti, Bara Hindu Rao), Delhi. Pan: Abxpn8345B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 30Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-20, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice Through Rpad. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.18,22,800/- Made By The Ao To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 2 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that

ITO, Ward- 4(1), New Delhi vs. Baba Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 595/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Singh Dahia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. P.C. Yadav, Advocate
Section 268A

brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08th August 2019 has decided that the revenue would not prefer any appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the revenue be decided

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 3618/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 92C

filing of a revised return. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, drew the attention of the Bench to para 4.8.8 of the order

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3563/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-28, Room E-9, Panchsheel Park, No.317, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110017 Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Revenue Assessee Cross Objection No.277/Del/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3563/Del/2016) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, E-9, Panchsheel Park, Central Circle-28, Room New Delhi-110017 No.317, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Assessee Revenue Revenue By Sh. Satpal Gulati Cit-Dr Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate

Section 132Section 153A

sustained. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.” CO.277/Del/2016 9. Against such relief granted by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Nkb Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Rewari vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

order of the Assessing Officer and directed for making fresh assessment. Aggrieved with the said direction of Learned PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility. The assessee filed a paper-book containing