“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

Smt Vijaya Nyati, Dhar vs. ITO, Dhar

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 703/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

test of human probability and thus the addition has rightly been made by the Ld. A.O. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions placed on record which are reproduced below:- Chronology of the Transaction

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S Prakash Oil Ltd., Village Kheda, Pithampur

In the result, all the three grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed and ITANo

ITA 488/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 Dcit(Central)-1 M/S Prakash Oil Ltd. Village Indore Kheda, Pithampur, बनाम/ Distt:Dhar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aabcp8087G

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Rs.11,13,71,997/-. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 6. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

The ACIT, Circle, Ratlam vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam

ITA 956/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

also held the reopening as invalid being based merely on a change of opinion. 9. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7 Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 10. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. AO. 11. Per contra Ld. counsel ... Rs.1,34,61,390/-. 21. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 22. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. AO. 23. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee apart from

The ACIT Circle, Ratlam vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam

ITA 955/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2552/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, 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 Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 40A(3)

with a direction to pass the same denovo. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have ... counsel for the assessee, referring to the additional grounds raised by the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 28.04.2017 against the order of the PCIT dated 17th February, 2017 wherein the assessee has challenged the order of the PCIT as illegal, invalid

Naveen Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 34(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1554/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Naveen Kumar Gupta, Vs Ito, Ba-97, Shalimar Bagh, Ward-34(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Akgpg8731Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Taneja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

parte order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 2 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel, at the outset, submitted that due to non-receipt of notice, the assessee could not appear before

Suresh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-37(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 865/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Suresh Kumar, Vs Ito, H.No.814, Main Chowk Ward-37(1), Pooth Khurd, Bawana, New Delhi. Delhi-110039. Pan-Bncpk1326D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Suresh Kumar (Appellant) Respondent By Sh. R.K.Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2021

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 46ASection 69

assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) failed to admit the additional evidences which are material

Brahampal Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3460/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 145ASection 2Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(1)(viii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)

Mamaiya are not applicable in the appellant’s case. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- i. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts both in making the addition of Rs.42

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1855/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

total turnover to 10%. 6. Aggrieved with such part relief granted by the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 In its impugned order, the CIT (Appeals) has relied on the information available with assessing officer

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2724/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 154Section 50CSection 55ASection 69A

same was allowed by the CIT(A) during the appeal proceedings. On being aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal vide appeal no. 2724/Del/2015. In response to this, the assessee filed cross objections vide c/o no. 456/Del/2015. The Ld. AR submitted that on perusal

Simranpal Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Simranpal Singh Suri, Vs Ito, Jg-1/77, Vikaspuri, Ward 45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Akzps3760Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farath Khan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That the order passed u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 22.12.2017 is perverse

Smt. Padma Kalani, Indore vs. ITO-1(3), Indore

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 87/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

while at the same time debiting in Profit & Loss Account with interest expenditure paying higher rate of interest. 6. Now the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. Smt.Padma Kalani ITA No. 87/Ind/2020 & 956/Ind/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submission and also relied

Shri Nilesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4(2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 294/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

transaction which cannot stand the test of human probability and confirmed the addition for estimated brokerage expenses. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from referring to the written submission submitted that the common issues raised

Pritesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4 (2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 293/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

M/S. Alankar Jewellers, Betul vs. DCIT Itarsi, Itarsi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 992/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2016-17

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Confirmed. Therefore, the appeal on these ground are Dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued at length referring to the written synopsis as well as the paper book running page 1 to 69 6 M/s Alankar Jewelers and also

Smt. Padma Kalani, Indore vs. ITO 3(1), Indore

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 956/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Chandumal Thawari, Betul vs. JCIT Range-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 837/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 69C

preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions partly allowed the appeal. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. A.O was not justified in rejecting the book

Chandra Sahu, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(4), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 76/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 was made. Against these additions assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 4. Now the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing the legal ground challenging the validity of assessment proceedings

Chandra Sahu, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(4), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

ITA 75/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

The Dy. CIT 4(1), Indore vs. M/S. Ryder Trans International (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 720/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

lender companies. The provisions of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. 5. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative apart from relying on the detailed finding of Ld. A.O also submitted that the issue raised in this appeal