“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

Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Kathiriya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

ITA 510/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271ASection 69A

quantum proceedings, and aggrieved by the various penalties confirmed by the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 12. Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued on the technical/legal ground raised by the assessee stating that in the assessee's case under consideration, the notice ... case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 293 & 294/AHD/2005, order dated 13.04.2021, wherein it was held as follows: "On second appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.186/Ahd/1998 dated 08.03.2004 the additions restricted the addition @ 5% of Gross Profit. Considering the fact that addition in the assessment order

Apex Irrigation, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 390/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

condonation of delay before this Tribunal and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient ... these facts, upheld the addition made by the assessing officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. Page 3 of 6 Apex Irrigation 7. Shri Brijesh Parekh, Learned Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that assessee had submitted

Jayesh Dolatbhai Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical 8

ITA 287/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.287/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayesh Dolatbhai Patel, Vs. Ito, Shop No.1, Arihant Saroj, M.G. Ward – 2, Road, Old Navyug Store, Valsad Valsad - 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apmpp3588D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms Jaishree Thakur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 253(3)

days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that he received only the recovery notice from Department and not the original order. Thereafter, he requested ... about the mistake when the hearing of the penalty was listed on 03.03.2025. His counsel discussed the matter and advised him to file appeal before the Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal was inadvertent and unintentional. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that the delay was unintentional, bonafide

Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 606/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P J, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal. Snr AR

Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR in argument stated that related to this appeal, the assessee is ready to file the additional evidence before the Bench

Asmita Amol Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1829/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69

could not file the appeal in time. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a lady and is not well versed in using technology. Further

Nyati Builders Private Limited, Pune vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115JSection 135Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

disallowed on the CSR spend. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the appellant is hereby allowed.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : "1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer

Bvg Developrs, Pune vs. Income Tax Authority, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1057/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Gauri S ManjrekarFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 143(1)

dismissed the same on account of non-appearance. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the receipt was an advance payment which was credited to the books as a liability

Bvg Developrs, Pune vs. Income Tax Authority, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Gauri S ManjrekarFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 143(1)

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

where any business siness or profession carried on by a firm has been 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : *1) The learned CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI has erred in sustaining the validity of the reassessment where it was without jurisdiction

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

appellant is void of any merit and the additional grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "1) The learned CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI has erred in sustaining the validity of the reassessment where

Birlasoft Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1116/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 36(1)(va)Section 51Section 80ISection 90

account of such enhanced profit. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: General 1. The learned AO NFAC and CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the Total Income ... further observed that 143(1) intimation merges into 143(3) order. Aggrieved with such order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once such merger has taken place, the issue of error in reporting of exempt dividend in the return

Calcutta Boys School Educational Society, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 2282/KOL/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 25.09.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Because the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata, erred in law as well as in facts in rejecting the application made ... accordingly cancelled/dropped the application as non-maintainable. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the facts of the case. During the course of the appeal, though

DCIT CC 7(2).Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Man Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal

Section 14ASection 194ASection 40

however, deleted the disallowance and The Ld CIT(A), however, deleted the disallowance and hence the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in that year. As hence the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in that year. As hence the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in that year

Dilip Jagannath Samant, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5638/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri S C AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 147Section 250Section 270A

after a delay of 261 days, the same was dismissed in limine vide order dated 20.08.2025. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 5638/mum/2025. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the quantum appeal is still pending before

Domet Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5482/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2008-09) Domet Trading Private Vs. Dcit-5(1)(2) Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Shop No. B/1, Ground Karve Road, Floor, Mahavir Darshan Mumbai-400020. Saidham, 3Rd Kumbharwada Lane, Grigaon, Mumbai-400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaccd5181C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

department, ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the appeal was filed in physical format on 20.04.2016, which was within time. However, on migration

Reginold John Bangera, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward-42(30(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6404/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2015-16)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

were furnished by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.10.2024. Further aggrieved, the assessee has not filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the assessee personally appeared and has requested for providing one more opportunity to submit the requisite documentary

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Delhi vs. Anova Infracon Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4313/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

addition is deleted, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not survived. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in cancelling

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Anova Infracon Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4312/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Simranjeet Kaur Bhatti, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Shri Muktsar Sahib

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

ITA 666/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 666/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Simranjeet Kaur Bhatti, 2640 Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Gurdev Nagar Ferozepur Road, Muktsar. Ludhiana, Punjab. [Pan:-Daapb9062E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

able to comply within time allowed and on account of this non-compliance, the appeal has been dismissed. 4. Now, in course of appeal before the tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that proper opportunity of hearing has not been granted by the ld. first appellate authority

Shri Muzafer Ahmad Rather, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 427/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C. A

Section 143(3)Section 250

existence of the appellate order only on 4th July, 2024, and thereafter, he appointed a lawyer who has guided him to file this appeal before the Tribunal on 29th July, 2024 which is belated by 163 days. He prayed that since the delay was not intentional or willful