← 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

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1454/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

Nagesh Hosiery Export Ltd, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward-17(3), New Delhi

ITA 7124/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Munshi Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

confirmed the addition made by the AO. 4.2 Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 7,52,062/- made

Puneet Traders, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 47(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 6032/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

Result Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2 are Dismissed.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount of cash deposited in the bank account was out of cash in hand

Harish Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5902/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Harish Kumar, Vs Ito, C/O Raman Sharma, Advocate, Ward-1(3), 117, Ff, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Bcepk4087J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th February, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. Information Was Obtained By The Ao As Per Air Information That The Assessee Has Deposited An Amount Of Rs.17,57,500/- In The Savings Bank Account During F.Y. 2009-10. To Verify The Genuineness Of The Transaction, Verification Letters Dated 29Th April, 2016 & 20Th January, 2017 Were Issued To The Assessee At The Address Given By The Filer. Since There Was No Compliance To The Notice Issued By The Ao, He Reopened The Assessment Invoking The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act After Obtaining Necessary Approval U/S 151 From The Appropriate Authority & Statutory Notice U/S 148 Dated 24Th March, 2017 Was Issued To The Assessee On His Last Known Address. There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee Despite Number Of Opportunities Granted. Only On 26Th May, 2017 The Assessee Appeared & Sought Adjournment Which Was Duly Granted By The Ao. Since There Was Non-Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee Thereafter, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.17,57,500/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee U/S 69 In The Ex Parte Order Passed By Him. Before The Cit(A), The Assessee Filed An Application Under Rule 46A For Admission Of Certain Additional Evidence. However, The Ld.Cit(A) Rejected The Additional Evidences Filed Before Him & Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farath Khan, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 46ASection 69

before him and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case

ITO, Ward-1(3), Noida vs. Dutta Ram, Noida

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

ITA 3221/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito Vs. Shri Dutta Ram, Prem Nagar, Ward- 1 (3) Dankaur, Dadri G. B. Nagar, Noida Noida-201301

circulars under reference. We find that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 directed that department shall not file appeal before the Tribunal in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs. It is also directed that this instruction

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Nefab India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

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 1394/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Akanshi Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 268A

been directed that the Department 2 ITA.No.1394/Del./2018 M/s. Nefab India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. 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 apply retrospectively to pending appeals

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with such part relief by the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- ITA No.3241/Del/2014 (by assessee) (A.Y. 2007-08) “1) That the TPO has no jurisdiction to determine arms length ... appeal are partly allowed.” 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not charged any service fee on corporate guarantee due to the following

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with such part relief by the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- ITA No.3241/Del/2014 (by assessee) (A.Y. 2007-08) “1) That the TPO has no jurisdiction to determine arms length ... appeal are partly allowed.” 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not charged any service fee on corporate guarantee due to the following

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with such part relief by the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- ITA No.3241/Del/2014 (by assessee) (A.Y. 2007-08) “1) That the TPO has no jurisdiction to determine arms length ... appeal are partly allowed.” 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not charged any service fee on corporate guarantee due to the following

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with such part relief by the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- ITA No.3241/Del/2014 (by assessee) (A.Y. 2007-08) “1) That the TPO has no jurisdiction to determine arms length ... appeal are partly allowed.” 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not charged any service fee on corporate guarantee due to the following

El El Hotels & Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 918/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed by the appellant in original return of income.” 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 5th August, 2011. Before the Tribunal, the assessee made three without prejudice arguments

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd., Gurgaon

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 546/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Bhuwan DhooperFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 268A

York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi. 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 apply retrospectively

DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the department isdismissed

ITA 382/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

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

ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi vs. Surana Buildtech P.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 4891/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 268ASection 68

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

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Shri Shri Kishan, Gurgaon

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 3425/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. 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

Rajeev Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-55(1), New Delhi

ITA 9593/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajeev Kumar Aggarwal, Vs Acit, B-9, Vivek Vihar, Circle - 55(1), New Delhi-110095 New Delhi. (Pan: Acbpa0668B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms Kriti Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

called, Ms Kriti Bindal, CA, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that there is an inadvertent delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. According to the applicant, there is a delay of 48 days in filing of appeal which is for bona fide unintentional reasons. Vide ... accordingly, the appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 16.12.2019. For all the above reasons, the delay was caused in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons canvassed by the assessee have also been averred through an affidavit dated 13.12.2019 which is on record. 3. Considering the submissions

Shriramji Agencies Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6116/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

sustained the penalty levied by the AO. 2 4.1 Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assesee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that

Dla Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeals is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3746/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Hon’Ble[Assessment Year : 2014-15 ]

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non prosecution. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, dismissed

Smt. Harminder Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54

further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also 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, the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility and filed documents electronically. 4. All the grounds raised ... stipulated period of one year. The assessee’s appeal to the CIT (A) was unsuccessful. 4. The assessee took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal, who took the view that the assessee having purchased the new flat within one year of the sale of his old residential house

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Herbert Smith Freehills Llc, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5647/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

CBDT, vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08th August, 2019, 2 ITA No. 5647/Del./2016 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