← 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

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

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6214/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

appeals of the appellant for these years are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty

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

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6213/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

appeals of the appellant for these years are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty

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

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6212/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

appeals of the appellant for these years are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty

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

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6211/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

appeals of the appellant for these years are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty

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

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6210/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

appeals of the appellant for these years are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty

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

In the result, all the 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6209/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

appeals of the appellant for these years are dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty

Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6204/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

appeals of the appellant for these years are dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty

Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6203/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

appeals of the appellant for these years are dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty

Govind Singh Grewal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3232/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Govind Singh Grewal, Vs Ito, 8-A, Panchsheel Marg, Ward-61(1), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aghpg7795D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 54

short-term capital gain without granting any indexation benefit. 3 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Commissioner of Income

Scan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 7079/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Shri K. Narasimha Chary K. Narasimha Charyk. Narasimha Chary Shri Shri

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Senior DR
Section 5(1)

Income- tax Authorities to exercise the option of settling the dispute in pursuance to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the pending appeal before the Tribunal was enumerated as ITA No.1079/Del/2019 on a wrong premise, whereas the correct identification is ITA No.7079/Del/2019; and, it is further stated that ITA No.1079/Del/2019

Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 7(2), New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 6936/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 250

Court in the case of assessee itself passed in earlier years, upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, none represented on behalf of the assessee despite informing the date of the hearing

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

assessee. The order dated 29.11.2017 passed u/s 143(3)/92CA(3) is, accordingly, set aside. 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions including the judgments referred and relied therein:- The company engaged

M/S. Daya Properties & Finance, Bhopal vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/IND/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(3)

confirmed. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is dismissed. M/s Daya Properties and Finance 5. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the written submissions dated 10.3.2021 placed on record. He mainly contended that return of income for Assessment Year

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 8. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. As regards the common Ground No.1 pertaining to the addition made by the Ld. A.O based on the statement given ... No.184 to 186/Ind/2018 order dated 8.1.2021 which is the same group as that of the assessee mentioned in the instant appeal and this Tribunal after considering the settled judicial precedents deleted the additions which were made by the Ld. A.O purely on the basis of statement given

The ACIT-5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

ITA 380/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

bogus creditors at Rs.83,05,400/- . Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. 3. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- 1. Whether

Ankush Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Delhi

ITA 186/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyita No. 186 /Del/ 2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Ankush Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward-40 (1) H-4 & 5/88, Suvidha Kunj, Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi 110034 Pan :Aetpg 8736Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/3/2021 Date Of Order : 24/3/2021

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Grievance of the assessee was that it was done without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.When the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal in ITA 4697 /Del/ 2014 against such an order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the said order and restored

Virender Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 3, Rewari

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

ITA 9901/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Ms Renu Mukherjee, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

holding the same to be not out of regular sale. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, did not press the legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment ... Rs.8,57,200/-, the ld.CIT(A) has already given relief to the extent of Rs.4,90,200/- and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. I find, the ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.3,67,000/- on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate with evidence

Balbir Investment Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1954/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

upheld 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, by raising the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred

M/S. Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi

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

ITA 3287/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Vs Pr. Cit-9, Ltd., New Delhi. 81/41, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Pan : Aacck5784H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate; Shri Rajiv Sabharwal, Ca; & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca. Revenue By : Mrs. Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd March, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2010 Declaring An Income Of Rs.5,940/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Cit-Ii, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No. File 148/2012-13/2817 Dated 15Th March, 2013, Forwarded The Letter Of Investigation Ii, Delhi, Vide F. No.Dit (Inv.)-Ii/U/S 148/2012-13/197 Dated 12Th March, 2013 Giving Information About An Accommodation Entry Of Rs.40 Lakhs Received By The Assessee From M/S Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Humtum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Based On The Above, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 After Recording The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Aashna Paul, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

order after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That order dated 23.3.2017 u/s 263 of the Act by learned Principal Commissioner of Income

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elative Building Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2498/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 10 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. “1. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.6,76,00,000/- made