“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

Shree Vaish Aggrawal Samaj Chawla Colony Ballabgarh, Ballabgarh, Faridabad vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4204/DEL/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: Na Vs. Cit(Exemption), Shree Vaish Aggrawal Samaj Chawla Colony, Chandigarh Agarsain Bhawan Aggarwal Dharamshala, Near Panchat Bhawan, Chawla Colony, Faridabad Pan: Abcas8302F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Charitra Gupta, Ca Sh. Deepak Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) [In Short, The “Cit(E)”], Delhi’S Order Dated 27.05.2025 Having Din & Notice No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2025-26/1076467568(1), Involving Proceedings Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Ii) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Coming To The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeking Section 12Ab Registration Herein, We Note From A Perusal Of The Case Record That The Learned Cit(E) Has Declined Its Application Dated 24.12.2024 Vide Following Detailed Discussion: - “4.2 In Response Thereto, The Applicant Has Furnished Its Reply On 05.03.2025. On Perusal Of The Financial Statements Submitted By The Applicant, It Has Been Observed That The Applicant Has Made Investments Of Rs. 8,00,000/- In Btl Impex India Ltd. & Rs. 39,02,760/- In Srs Investment Ltd. The Relevant Extracts Of The Balance Sheets As On 31.03.2022, 31.03.2023 & 31.03.2024 Is Reproduced As Under:

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

registration granted u/s 12AB by any authority at any earlier time. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed the instant appeal before the tribunal. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. The Revenue’s sole substantive

Aroma Chemicals, Moradabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Moradabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2465/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

charged is excessive.” 5. In this regard, the present AO of the case, submitted a para wise comments on the above grounds of appeal before the Tribunal vide letter dated 12.09.2025. 6. Ground no. 2 of the appeal regarding the absence of prior approval as required

Amway India Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Delhi / NFAC, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5912/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwalamway India Enterprises Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-1(1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Vs. Delhi/Nfac. Plot No.8, Non Hierarchical Commercial, Jasola, Delhi-110025. Pan-Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92C

Amway India Enterprises Private Limited vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved by the final order, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “ 1. The Ld. TPO/DRP/AO has erred on facts and in law in. passing the impugned order

ITO, Income Tax Department vs. Humole Diagnostic Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect

ITA 1122/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

effect involved in the addition is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel furnished a computation of tax effect arising from the disputed addition of Rs.2,26,46,850/-, which is reproduced as under ... 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No. 09 of 2024 dated 17/09/2024. As per the said Circular, the Revenue shall not file an appeal before the Tribunal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 60 lakhs, and this appeal is not maintainable. 4. In the result, the appeal filed

DCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi vs. Acme Tele Power Ltd. (Now Known As Acme Cleantech Solution Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

vide order dated 03.02.2017, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3641/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4478/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

Sunita Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 97/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

For Appellant: Shri Aryan Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 5Section 69A

compliance to the various notices issued for hearing. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. In the course of the appeal before

Alok Kumar, Madhepura vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Saharsa

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

ITA 467/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraalok Kumar, Ito Ward-3(5), S/O Sri Dasrath Mehata, Saharsha Village- Ganeshpur, M.S. Vs Yogiraj, Purani Madhepura, Dist- Madhepura – 852116 (Bihar) (Pan: Bpkpk1186D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : K.P. Jalan, Ar Respondent By : Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 14.05.2024. 2 Alok Kumar, Ay: 2012-13 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: K.P. Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 292BSection 54F

granted by service of the notices manually. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. The Ld. AR submitted before us that

Innovative Telecom and Softwares Private Ltd, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 796/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.796/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Innovative Telecom & Vs. Acit, Softwares Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), O/21-22, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Surat Nanpura, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci8036R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren M. Diwan, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

Rs.2,25,99,000/- and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted the details of cash sales such as name

Anita Rani W/O Sh. Rajender Singh, Cheeka Guhla, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

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

ITA 781/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

holding that the assessee had failed to show “sufficient cause”, without adjudicating the matter on merits. 5. Feeling aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the delay was bona fide, unintentional, and caused

Gagandeep Kaur, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Mohali, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153C

upheld the assessment order.. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the initial hearing of the appeal, the attention of the Bench was drawn by Ld. AR to the fact that the addition had been made solely

Sri Gowri Sankara Sagara (Uppara) Anna Sathra Sangham, Kurnool vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1507/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

relating to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 265 days in filing the captioned appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee “Sri Gowri Sankara Sagara (Uppara) Anna Sathra Sangham, Srisailam, represented by its Secretary, has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons ... under a bona fide belief that, the matter was still under remand proceedings, the delay of 265 days occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee further submitted that, the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence or lack of diligence, but solely on account

Penninti Vivekananda Rao, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1494/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1494/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Penninti Vivekananda Vs. Adit (International Rao, Hyderabad Taxation)-2 Pan:Ayupp1895L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 270A

upheld the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the solitary issue arising out of the grounds of appeal

Sujatha Kumar, Banashankari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudur

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

ITA 1439/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1439/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year – 2016-2017 Mrs. Sujatha Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru – 560 085 Ward-1, Gudur-524101. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Pan Ahmpk3172C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Siddesh Nagraj Gaddi राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA Siddesh Nagraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. AR

assessment year 2016-2017. 2 ITA.No.1439/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 97 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay as well as an affidavit explaining the cause of delay. The learned Authorised

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1352/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

shares, as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate, submitted that, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1351/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1349/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Sudhir Babu Chalasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1348/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 69A

Vermeiren India Rehab Private Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order, the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 9 ITA.No.1315 /Hyd./2024 7. Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer was erred