← 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

Kartikay Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6409/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Kartikay Nayyar, Vs Acit, C/O-Anil Jain, Dd & Co., 611, Central Circle-20, Surya Kiran Building, New Delhi. K.G.Marg, New Delhi-110026. Pan-Alxpn4900G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Farhat Khan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274

assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has shown sufficient reasons for non-compliance of the notice. He submitted that

ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Dlehi vs. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2608/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 68

appellant succeeds in this ground of appeal.” CO No.121/Del/2018 7.3 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. DR strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO. She submitted that

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3731/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

done in the case of Anand Pershad Jaiswal. 12. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3730/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

done in the case of Anand Pershad Jaiswal. 12. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified

Sh. Karamjit S. Jaiwswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3248/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

done in the case of Anand Pershad Jaiswal. 12. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified

Sh. Karamjit S. Jaiwswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3247/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

done in the case of Anand Pershad Jaiswal. 12. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified

P.K.Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. Pr.CIT, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6039/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6039/Del/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (Through Physical Hearing) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit C/O. Rra Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty 3 notice u/s 271(1)(c) was also issued on 18/3/2013. In the meanwhile, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal against the order u/s 263 and the Tribunal vide order dated 18/11/2016 in ITA No. 2055/Del/2013 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the addition ... laid down in Section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and was not barred by limitation. Since, the assessee had gone in appeal before the Tribunal against the order u/s 263 of the CIT, the penalty order was passed rightly by the CIT after the order of the Tribunal

Rajesh Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 31(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 5712/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12 Rajesh Gupta Huf, Vs. Ito, C/O-Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-31(4), Chartered Accountants, R. No.1209, Civic Centre, L-7A (Lgf), South Extension New Delhi-110002 Part-Ii, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaghr9262M

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings challenged before him. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal 1. That under the facts and circumstances, proceedings U/s 147/148 are without jurisdiction, without application of mind

Digvijay Advisor Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad Up vs. ITO Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4540/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68Section 69C

assessment proceedings as well as on the merit. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Because, the order of learned lower authority is bad in law & against the facts and circumstance

Plutus Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4211/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Mrs. Premlata Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh CIT-DR
Section 68

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi vs. Jay Pee Bros Medical Publishers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 280/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Addl. Cit, Vs. Jay Pee Bros Medical Special Range-5, Publishers P. Ltd, New Delhi B-3, 23/23B, Emca House, Ansari Road, Daryagnaj, New Delhi Pan: Aaacj0340F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Garg, Adv
Section 268A

brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No.03/2018 dated 11TH July 2018 has decided that the revenue would not prefer an appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs which applied to the pending appeals also. 3. We have heard the contention of rival

DCIT, Circle-23(1), New Delhi vs. Showa (India) P.Ltd, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 4677/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Showa (India) Pvt Ltd, Circle-23(1), 23-32, Sector-58, Faridabad, New Delhi Pan: Aabce5725G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DRFor Respondent: Ms. Assem Chawla, CA
Section 268A

brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No.03/2018 dated 11TH July 2018 has decided that the revenue would not prefer an appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs which applied to the pending appeals also. 3. We have heard the contention of rival

Xavient Software Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Noida

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

ITA 1404/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 154Section 40A(7)

appeal of the appellant fails and is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the learned DR and perused the record. We find the learned CIT(A) without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee

M/S. Singh Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3061/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Therefore, the penalty levied is confirmed.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the notice issued u/s 271(l)(c) and order passed under

Nikhil Jain (L/H of Beena Jain), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7880/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nikhil Jain Vs Acit, (L/H Of Beena Jain), Circle-31(1), H-41, Green Park Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aagpj1088H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate & Shri Puneet Rai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 40A(3)

account of machinery repairs u/s 40A(3) is sustained.” 6. 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 law and on facts in affirming the action

Awp Assistance (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6585/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2013-14 Awp Assistance (India) Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 1St Floor, Dlf Square, M-Block, Vs Circle-1(1), Jacaranda Marg, Dlf City, Gurgaon. Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122002. Pan-Aafcm1460J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Saumya Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Ashok Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2021

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

submissions sustained the finding of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.S. Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2506/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs C.S. Datamation Research Services Circle-6(2), Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B-12, Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccc6969K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Manpower Supply, Data Entry Services & Market Research, Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2011 Declaring Total Income At Rs.27,60,390/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. However, A Perusal Of The Assessment Order Shows That On Seven Occasions There Was Non-Attendance From The Side Of The Assessee Starting From The Date 08.09.2011 To 15.02.2013. Subsequently, Towards The Fag End Of The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Filed Certain Details, But, Neither The Books Of Account Were Produced Nor Full Details Were Filed Before The Ao To Verify The Genuineness Of The Claims Made In The P&L Account & The Correctness Of The Income As Computed By The Assessee Remained Unsubstantiated. The Ao, Therefore, Rejected The Book Results & Determined The Profit At Rs.2,22,81,308/- By Estimating The Profit At 15% Of The Gross Receipt At Rs.14,85,42,058/-.

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

against Rs.2,22,81,308/- made by the AO. 2 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “The Assessing Officer, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2), New Delhi has been directed

Wig Brothers India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5888/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Praskash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders

Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7675/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

made by the TPO to the extent of Rs.15,51,55,954/- as against adjustment of Rs.16,04,47,763/-. 6. Now, the appeal before the Tribunal is for limited purpose for adjudicating the issue as to whether “other method” applied by the taxpayer to benchmark its international transactions

ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi vs. Parag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6283/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA
Section 69

himself is followed and accordingly, the appeal is allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred