“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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5204/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 103, Pratap Bhawan, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Near Indian Express Building, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact4445P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mrs Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 31St March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Sheet Metal Components & Tools & Dies. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2011 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Said Return Was Revised On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,61,68,075/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao, On Perusal Of The Balance Sheet Filed By The Assessee, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Issued 14,72,000 Equity Shares At A Premium Of Rs.115. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Issued Shares To The Following Persons/Parties:-

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Mrs Aashna Paul, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)

deleted. The Grounds are accordingly partly allowed.” 19. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. “The impugned order of the CIT(A) is bad in law as well as on facts of the case

Exlservice.Com(India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8452/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

claim of depreciation stating that in A.Y 2010-11, though the DRP has allowed the claim of depreciation, the department has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and further, the assessee has failed to establish its claim of the parameters discussed in the assessment order. The main reason for disallowance

Exlservices.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5436/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Exlservice.Com (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5435/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Botil Oil Tools (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

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

ITA 2458/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Malhotra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35f

after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal Grounds of Appeal No.1 Claim u/s 35f2AB~) amounting

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sweka Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed

ITA 5063/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5063/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit M/S Sweka Power Tech Engineers Central Circle-5, Vs. (P) Ltd., New Delhi. 254, Vardhman Plaza-Ii, J Block, Community Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Pan No. Aahcs0666C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 268A

Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by CBDT u/s 268A of the Act, it has been directed that the Department shall not file appeal before the Tribunal in case where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. It is also directed that this Instruction

Late Shri Ganpat Singh, L/H Bikram Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

ITA 2880/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Frat Khan,Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

declared in the return of income. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds :- Ground Grounds of Appeal No. 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both

ITO, Ward- 3(2), Noida vs. Renu Jain, Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3516/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessment again after complying with due process of law. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds : 1. “That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by annulling the assessment order

Sanjiv Ahuja, Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 977/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja,Sr. DR

Section 13(2)Section 54

only one residential house. Accordingly, ground of appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :- “That the Ld. CIT (A) erred both in fact and in law in confirming addition 1. made

Bipin Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 33(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 6575/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhasstt. Year 2011-12 Bipin Jain, Vs. Itp Ward-33(3) C-2/2226, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070 Pan Aelpj5333A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice so issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) was never received

ACIT, Circle Panipat, Haryana vs. Mittal Processors Pvt. Ltd., Panipat

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6466/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. C. Yadav, Advocate

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 1 pleaded that the appeal of the Revenue be decided

A vs. Holidays (P) Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 6595/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

dismissed the same as barred by limitation. 2.2 Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Arvind Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 41(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3167/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh.R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh.Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh.Farat Khan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

other disallowances/additions were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The first issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining ... Rs.1,40,300/- being interest paid on credit card dues. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 87 of the paper book drew the attention of the bench

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6434/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Section 14A

disallowance pertaining to amount paid towards fines and penalties. 2.2 Now, aggrieved both the assessee as well as the Department is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT (A)] erred on facts

Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

ITA 6330/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Section 14A

ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Surya Fresh Foods Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the Departmental appeal is not maintainable as the appeal is filed against the Board instructions referred to above and therefore, the appeal of the Department is liable to be dismissed

ITA 4974/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Dilip Kothari, CIT-DR

Section 268A

11th July, 2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A of the I.T. Act, it has been directed that the Department shall not file appeal before the Tribunal in case where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.20 lakhs. It is also directed that this instruction will

Yogendra Chandra Kurele, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 23 (Now CC- 32), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4233/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the quantum appeal before the Tribunal has deleted the said additions upon which the penalty has been levied. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order, Penalty order ... order dated 29.03.2019 in ITA Nos. 2707, 2709/Del/2013 and CO Nos. 201, 202/Del/2014 for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05. Since the quantum appeal before the Tribunal has deleted the said additions upon which the penalty has been levied, the addition itself does not survive. The penalty under Section

ITO, Ward- 126(2), New Delhi vs. Vichara Technology (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6142/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. Vichara Technology Ward – 126 (2) Vs (I) Pvt. Ltd. E-186, Greater New Delhi Kailash-I, New Delhi Pan No. Aabcv2180N (Appellant) (Respondent)

than Rs. 50,00,000/- and as per the CBDT order No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The revenue is directed not to file appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. Accordingly the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Cross Objection No.20/Del/2018 ( A.Y.2011-12

ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi vs. Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1599/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O. P. Kanta.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Chaurasia, CA

Section 132

Amarjeet Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1455/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

which is before the order passed by the CIT(A). As the e-appeal was pending, the assessee at that stage never filed appeal before the Tribunal. But since in e- appeal as well the order dated 17.10.2017, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order, the assessee has challenged both