“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

Thati Satish Kumar, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(12), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1176/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154

under Section 154 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Learned Counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Pragati Green Meadows & Resorts Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1795/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HONBLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HONBLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 M/s. Pragathi Green Meadows & Resorts Limited. ITA No. 1795/Hyd/2017 and CO No.31/Hyd/2025 8. The learned counsel for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar

The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co Op Society Ltd, Kanyakumari vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nagercoil

ITA 3039/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co Op Society Ltd, Kanyakumari vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nagercoil

ITA 3038/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. R. Harshvardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Narayani Siddhar Peedam Charitable Trust, Vellore vs. DDIT (Exemptions-III), Chennai

ITA 1532/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1532/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Narayani Siddhar Peedam Charitable Trust, Rep. By Trustee, K. Soundararajan, Thirumalaikodi, Ariyur Village, Vellore 632 055. Pan: Aaatn 3254F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Director Of Vs. Income Tax, (Exemptions – Iii) Chennai (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri N. Muralikumaran, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Mythili, Jcit : 25.11.2025 : 26.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Mumbai Dated 29.03.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. :- 2 -:

Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G(5)(vi)

hence confirmed. These grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had furnished all the relevant details of the donors to the AO. It was submitted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupur vs. Loocust Incorp, Tirupur

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

ITA 1426/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Mythili, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited [2008] 306 ITR 392.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.DR relied on the grounds. 6. The Ld.AR on the other hand submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour

Khimjibhai Govabhai Ravriya, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6063/MUM/2025[6063]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkhimjibhai Govabhai Ravriya, 3203, Vasant Marvel Grandeur Chsl, Magathane Telephone Exchange, Borivali East, Mumbai – 400066 ............... Appellant Pan: Ahdpr5483J V/S

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 250

root of the matter, and thus, the validity of the defect in the notice could have been challenged by filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is further pleaded that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal have passed a favourable order on a similar issue ... assessee submitted that immediately upon receiving this advice and becoming aware of the legal position, he initiated steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, and due to the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal was filed after a delay of 115 days. Accordingly, the assessee has prayed for condonation

Mr. Godwin Donald Barreto, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5487/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmr. Godwin Donald Barreto Vs. Income Tax Officer- Barreto Housekon Divita 35(1)(4), Village, Ramkrishna Mandir Aayakar Bhawan, Road Andheri East, Opp., Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-4000059 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aklpb7203R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression" sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. At the very outset, I noticed that assessee

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Bhandari &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80G

Ground 2 is without merit and is dismissed. rdingly, Ground 2 is without merit and is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Chandra Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5022/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawala.Ys: 2009-10

Section 250Section 68

which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. At the very outset, it has been pointed

Hindesa Yarns Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4713/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahindesh Yarns Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 15(2)(1) C/O. Siddhesh Pillai, No. 9, Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Vinayagar Nagar, Kasthuri Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Nakayam Palayam, Road, Churchgate, Vadavalli. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabch4697L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, subject cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon the assessee. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits

Tara Vati, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Circle 3(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest