← 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

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5299/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 154Section 41(1)Section 69C

assent of President of India.” 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 207 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee company is placed on record ... along with the affidavit. Taking into account the submission so made, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and take up the matter for adjudication. It is also noted that both, the impugned assessment order and the first appellate order

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bp India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4907/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan and Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

contentions whereby Acropetal Technologies Ltd. was excluded and e4e Healthcare Business Services Comparable was directed to be included against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.3. Assessee through its cross objection is defending the order of ld. CIT(A) whereby relief has been granted in respect ... comparables for which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No.3 in the cross objection is regarding jurisdictional issue on account of limitation in terms of section 153 of the Act. 4. We first take up the appeal filed by Revenue on the merits of the case and thereafter

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

written back. The disallowance under section decided against the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified

Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3510/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

relating to foreign tax credit were decided against the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) is justified

Bhagawati M Jain, Dombivali vs. Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2408/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhagawati M Jain Income Tax Officer C-22, Bhanu Chs, Ward 3(1), Bhanu Nagar, Dombivali East, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Kalyan - 421201 Kalyan-Murbad Rd, Maharashtra Kalyan-Dombivali, Maharashtra, 421301 (Pan: Aatpj1123G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073449956(1), Dated 19.02.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S. 147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income- Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 69B

examine. Accordingly, addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer was sustained, by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 Bhagawati M Jain AY 2018-19 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasized on the fact that assessee had been

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West vs. M M Plastoware India Private Limited, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M M Plastoware India Private Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane Limited Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Bhayander West, Thane – 101101. (Pan: Aahcm2568D) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 120/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M M Plastoware India Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-1, Thane Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, 90 Feet Road, Vs. Bhayander West, Thane – 101101. (Pan: Aahcm2568D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalit Munoyat, Ca Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Munoyat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 32(1)(ila)

rate of 20% on the new assets acquired during the year which amounts to Rs.97,23,986/- against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5.1. For these two amounts assessee has demonstrated evidently its justifiability for the claim so made. For the first amount

Shiv Shakti Oil Mills, Kaithal, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Sh. Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 263Section 68

however, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised Ground No.1 challenging the validity

Shiv Shakti Oil Mills, Kaithal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Sh. Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 263Section 68

however, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised Ground No.1 challenging the validity

Shiv Shakti Oil Mills, Kaithal, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Sh. Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 263Section 68

however, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised Ground No.1 challenging the validity

Harjinder Singh, Derabassi vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJ PAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak Malhotra, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 56(2)(x)

made by the AO without adjudicating the issues on merits. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an illiterate agriculturist and was not well conversant with

Sawastika Printing & Packaging, Kala Mab vs. Assessing Officer, Nahan

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1222/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Hon'ble CIT(A)(NFAC) that assessee is having business turnover of Rs 16,77,30,943/-. While upholding the additions of Rs 20,81,000/- the Hon'ble CIT(A) (NFAC) has observed in last para of his order as under:-

For Appellant: Shri Yad Ram Saini, Advocate and Shri Neeraj Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147

unexplained within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the reassessment as well as the addition sustained under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Harbans Singh Sadhiora Prop. M/S Neeta Jewellers, Gill Road, Janta Nagar, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1110/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69B

originally, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order against the assessee for which, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in ITA No. 609/Chd/2023 vide order, dated 04.04.2024 set aside the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal

Mukesh Kumar HUF, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Disposal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69A

expenses at 40% and addition under section 69A were confirmed. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the authorities below erred in mechanically estimating agricultural expenses without considering the nature of crops

Yakubmiya Nabimiya Belim, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1464/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1464/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Yakubmiya Nabimiya Belim, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs. Muslim Vas, Ward-3, At. Raska, Nadiad. Taluka Mehmedabad, Kheda-387130. Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah with Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. I observe that there is a delay of 233 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, in the application for condonation of delay, has stated that the notice was received through e-mail but was not communicated

Esi Hospital Employees Coop Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3031/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3031/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A +For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

confirmed the action of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. ESI Hospital Employees Co-op. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. :- 3 -: 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record

Himachal Mitra Mandal Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(3), Mummbai

ITA 9059/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sofiya Shanmugam &For Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

file submissions and/or provide a copy of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Learned

Kalpana Sanjay Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-41(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 9047/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-1, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 1Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

against the aforesaid Assessment Order was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 31/10/2025. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: “2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 9046/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

against the aforesaid Assessment Order was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/12/2025. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Surendra Himmatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8536/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

date of filing return of income for the Assessment Year 2024-2025. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. 7. Section

Shri Abdul Wahab Wajidali Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6793/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 254(1)Section 69A

record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of about 22 months in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Though, the Shri Abdul WahabWajidali Khan registry has not issued any defect notice. The assessee has filed its own affidavit in explaining the delay ... assessment order when recovery proceeding was initiated in the month of October, 2025. The assessee immediately after downloading impugned order, filed appeal before the Tribunal. There was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicatedthe various grounds of appeal