Contents of The Article / E-Book Introduction Appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) Appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Appeal before High Court Appeal before Supreme Court Form 35 for filing appeal to Commissioner(Appeals) Form 36 for filing appeal to Appellate Tribunal Form 36A, i.e. memorandum of cross-objections to the   Appellant Tribunal Standing Order under Income Tax [...]

CA Hiral Raja Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act states that the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide the appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed.

The E-Book written by CA Agarwal Sanjay ‘Voice of CA’ & CA Sidharth Jain deals with following topics related to Income tax Appeal with Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). Appeal – Meaning Nature of Tax Appeals Relevant Provisions Appealable Orders Appeal by person denying liability to deduct tax Form of Appeal and Limitations

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has come down heavily on the Tax Department for fostering “a perception that it has a tendency to opt for appeals even when it is on a weak wicket” and this “appealititis is more detrimental when applied on small taxpayers constituting a large chunk of appellants.”

The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against the then Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal), XIV, Mumbai U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. on the allegation that he had obtained pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs (approx) during the period 2001 to 2008 in the form of huge donations for his Mumbai based charitable trust from Income Tax assesses/ parties coming under his jurisdiction and as a quid pro quo passed orders in the favour of the assesses.

As the search warrant was issued in the joint names of the assessee and her spouse, it means that the officer had reason to believe that the undisclosed assets and income were held jointly. If so, it is not open for the AO to assess the assessee individually on the basis of the assets and documents seized during the course of search in pursuance to the said warrant but the assessment ought to have been only in the capacity of AOP or BOI.

The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) which was rejected by the AO but allowed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee and held that it was not eligible for deduction. The assessee filed a MA u/s 254 (2) pointing out that it had cited a judgement of the Kolkota Bench of the Tribunal (which had been considered by the CIT (A)) and a judgement of the Kolkota High Court which had not been considered by the Tribunal when deciding the appeal and the same was a ‘mistake apparent from the record’.

CASE LAW DETAILS In The case of: CIT vs. Mohd. Farooq, Decided by: (Allahabad High Court – Full Bench), Appeal No.: Income Tax Appeal No. (78) of 2002, Date of Order: 03.09.2009 S. 260A permits the filing of an appeal to the High Court within 120 days. In CIT vs. Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 [...]

CASE LAW DETAILS Decided by: CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGLAORE,  In The case of: DHL Lemuir Logistics Pvt. Ltd.  V Commissioner of Service Tax , Appeal No.:, Service Tax Appeal No. 389/2007, Decided on June 29, 2009 RELEVENT PARAGRAPH 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The appellants had furnished a flow chart [...]

Where the assessee-society was storing the controlled commodities in its godowns as part of its own trading stock, it was not entitled to claim deduction for the margin of profit between issue price and sale price of the controlled commodities under section 80P(2)(e).