← 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

Sh. Mahesh Prakash Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6113/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhuand, Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Sh. Mahesh Prakash Vs. Ito, Sharma, Ward – 37(2), 430, Hawa Singh Block, New Delhi Asiad Village, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Aaaps 3525 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi Passed Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Act, 1961 Order Dated 18.08.2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under: A.Ys. 2007-08 3. Assessee Is An Individual Stated To Be Doctor Deriving Income From Profession, Salary, House Property & Other Sources. Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2007-08 Declaring Total Income At Rs.5,84,935/- & The Same Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened For Reassessment U/S 147 & Accordingly Notice U/S 148 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Framed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 11.03.2014 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 15,84,940/-.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28

order dated 18.08.2015 in Appeal No.89/2014-15 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order passed in ITA No.6173/Del/2015 order dated 16.08.2016 had dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Ssg Mercantile Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1864/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

vide his impugned order dated 24.1.2019 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the impugned order dated 24.1.2019 assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee draw our attention towards the paper books filed by the assessee

ITO, Ward- 1(4), Shamli vs. Cane Development Council, Shamli

In the result, the Departmental appeals are not maintainable as the appeals are filed against the Board instructions referred to above and therefore, the appeals of the Department are liable to be ...

ITA 7490/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi, Sr. D.R
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

Dated 11thJuly, 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

Cane Development Council, Mawana, Meerut vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Ghaziabad

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 7373/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi, Sr. D.R
Section 268A

ITA.No.7373/Del./2017 M/s. Cane Development Council, Mawana, Meerut. 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

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

were computed at Rs.67,92,04,834/-. The appellant approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and then filed an appeal before the Tribunal. By the 2015:DHC:1459-DB ITA Nos. 371/2012 & 372/2012 Page 7 of 24 impugned order, addition of Rs.9,80,00,000/- to the special reserve ... also made adjustment of Rs.18,66,00,000/-, which were treated by the assessee as Debt Redemption Reserve. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have affirmed the said findings of the Assessing Officer. 11. The contention of the appellant-assessee is two-fold. Firstly, the reserve created

Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi vs. M/S Muthoot Financiers, New Delhi

ITA - 336 / 2002HC Delhi03 Feb 2015
Section 148Section 260Section 269Section 271

271D of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 18 lakhs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. On a further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to give a definite finding whether the transaction was between the firm and partner ... impugned order of penalty is cancelled." 13. The findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have been confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. 14. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure

Pawan Kumar Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal is disposed of

ITA - 137 / 2003HC Delhi27 Nov 2014
Section 260ASection 5Section 5(1)(ii)Section 64

making a gift by an non-resident Indian. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. 5. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and has succeeded by the impugned order dated 17th September, 2002. The said order records that during the course of arguments, the authorized representative

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi- II vs. M/S Kohinoor Impex P. Ltd

ITA - 179 / 2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 80HSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(v)Section 95

amount paid was towards sale price of the goods purchased and also for settlement of delayed payment. 6. Aggrieved, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal who have, by the impugned order dated 12th March, 2001 dismissed the said appeal. Tribunal, in the impugned order, have held that interest payment

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA - 451 / 2010HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 260ASection 80

assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which was allowed by CIT (Appeals) vide its order dated 27.06.2006. The Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section ... preceding years for disposing of the appeals relating to the assessment year 2004-2005. 29. We, accordingly, hold that the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal were correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section

Commissioneer of Income Tax vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan

ITA - 1734 / 2006HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 260ASection 80

assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which was allowed by CIT (Appeals) vide its order dated 27.06.2006. The Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section ... preceding years for disposing of the appeals relating to the assessment year 2004-2005. 29. We, accordingly, hold that the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal were correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan

ITA - 1733 / 2006HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 260ASection 80

assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which was allowed by CIT (Appeals) vide its order dated 27.06.2006. The Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section ... preceding years for disposing of the appeals relating to the assessment year 2004-2005. 29. We, accordingly, hold that the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal were correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Delh Press Patra Prakashan

ITA - 1732 / 2006HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 260ASection 80

assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) which was allowed by CIT (Appeals) vide its order dated 27.06.2006. The Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section ... preceding years for disposing of the appeals relating to the assessment year 2004-2005. 29. We, accordingly, hold that the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal were correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section

Association of Corporation & Apex Societies of Handlooms vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA - 526 / 2012HC Delhi10 Jan 2013
For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)

Form-10 prescribed under Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was filed only at the stage of the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the other three appeals, which pertain to assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 the said Form-10 has been furnished during

Association of Corporation & Apex Societies of Handlooms vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA - 525 / 2012HC Delhi10 Jan 2013
For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)

Form-10 prescribed under Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was filed only at the stage of the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the other three appeals, which pertain to assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 the said Form-10 has been furnished during

Associationof Corporations & Apex Societis & Handlooms vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA - 524 / 2012HC Delhi10 Jan 2013
For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)

Form-10 prescribed under Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was filed only at the stage of the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the other three appeals, which pertain to assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 the said Form-10 has been furnished during

Association of Corporation & Apex Societies of Handlooms vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA - 523 / 2012HC Delhi10 Jan 2013
For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)

Form-10 prescribed under Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was filed only at the stage of the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the other three appeals, which pertain to assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 the said Form-10 has been furnished during

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA - 1124 / 2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

registrattotr u/s I2A of the Income-lax Acl, I96I '" 10 Against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions), tlte assessee lllcd an appeal before the Tribunal and raised several contentions which were all "u'',*1,1stod by the Tribunal which upheld in principle the right of the DIT (l3xemptions ... This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exernptions) that thc asscsscc preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No 3054/Del/2008 '['he 'l'riburlal exatrttttetl the facts and the submissions in great detail frorn paragraphs

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA - 1104 / 2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

registrattotr u/s I2A of the Income-lax Acl, I96I '" 10 Against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions), tlte assessee lllcd an appeal before the Tribunal and raised several contentions which were all "u'',*1,1stod by the Tribunal which upheld in principle the right of the DIT (l3xemptions ... This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exernptions) that thc asscsscc preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No 3054/Del/2008 '['he 'l'riburlal exatrttttetl the facts and the submissions in great detail frorn paragraphs

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA - 1092 / 2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 12LSection 260ASection 263

registrattotr u/s I2A of the Income-lax Acl, I96I '" 10 Against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions), tlte assessee lllcd an appeal before the Tribunal and raised several contentions which were all "u'',*1,1stod by the Tribunal which upheld in principle the right of the DIT (l3xemptions ... This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exernptions) that thc asscsscc preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No 3054/Del/2008 '['he 'l'riburlal exatrttttetl the facts and the submissions in great detail frorn paragraphs

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA - 754 / 2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 260ASection 263Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 3 of 22 4. It would be, therefore, appropriate to refer to the circumstances under which the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.3054/Del/2008, in order to appreciate the controversy in perspective. 5. The assessee was incorporated as a society on 10.05.1993 under ... registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 10. Against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and raised several contentions which were all considered by the Tribunal which upheld in principle the right of the DIT (Exemptions) to look into