← 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

Viral Chandrakantbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1299/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalviral Chandrakantbhai Shah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co., Ward-3(3)(5), Chartered Accountants, Ahmedabad. 201, Devashish Complex, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off C G Road, Ahmedabad- 380009. [Pan :Bgups2407 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“The Cit(A) In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Substantive Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “Whether, On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.4,19,06,500/- U/S.69A Of The Act. 3. The Assessee Has Also Sought Admission Of The Following Additional Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the material available on record. In the present case, the assessment

Sai Sumanth Mitta, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Warangal

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

ITA 815/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 115BSection 69A

thus, sustained the additions made by the A.O. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 Sai Sumanth Mitta 6. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Ocean Sparkle Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 744/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 601/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271BSection 274Section 3Section 44A

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Learned Counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty

Federation of Ap Cooperative Urban Banks and Credit Societies Limited Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. DR

Credit Societies 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 290 days in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the same. The Learned Authorised Representative ... upheld the disallowance made by the CPC. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the sole issue arising out of the present appeal of the assessee relates

Pentyala Madhavi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

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

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

income under the head “Income from Other Sources.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, submitted that, the assessment order passed

Meraj Anjum, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1467/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 69A

assessee and sustained additions made by the A.O. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A., referring to the explanation furnished by the assessee to the A.O. during

Viva Boards Private Limited, Nizamabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 1303/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

unexplained cash credits. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee company is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee company Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made

Ramanagaram Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1306/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 7

appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra Kumar (IRS Retired), referring to the order passed

Ramanagaram Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1305/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 7

appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra Kumar (IRS Retired), referring to the order passed

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rathnamma Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1235/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 142(1)Section 194H

under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 11 Rathnamma Infratech Private Limited 9. Ms. U. Mini Chandran, the Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue, submitted that

Ranchi Expressways Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1594/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), but could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 25.01.2019 rejected the explanation of the assessee and sustained additions made by the A.O. towards refund of TDS along with interest by holding that, as per the provisions of Section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which is applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19, unless corresponding income is offered to tax, TDS related to the said income cannot be allowed

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 244A

assessee and sustained the additions made by the A.O. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 6. We have heard the learned Sr.AR for the Revenue, Shri Gurpreet Singh, perused

Prashant Kumar, Delhi vs. Asst CIT, Circle 70(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5624/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. M.K. Bhatt, CA & Sh. Malav Gosowami, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 15BSection 69A

Aggrieved, Assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A), who had confirmed the action of the AO. Against the above, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that Appellant has taken a personal loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- on dated

Amaan Sadiq, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5553/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Triq Nafees, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Aggrieved, Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and also confirmed the action of the AO. Against the same, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I noticed that the difference

ITO-28(1), Civic Center New Delhi vs. Arpitam Builders LLP, South Delhi

ITA 1368/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Ito, Vs Arpitam Builders Llp G-3, Ward 28(1), 2Nd Floor, Maharani E-2 Block, Bagh, East Of Kailash, Civic Center. Delhi-110065. New Delhi-110002 Pan: Abqfa2725F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Mayank Patwari & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocates Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

submissions, vide impugned order dated 26.12.2024, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3907/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions made. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3906/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions made. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the addition

Axiomatic Itech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

reasons beyond its control. The assessee submitted that the previous tax consultant, who was handling the matter, had informed the assessee that the appeal before the Tribunal was being filed and even stated Axiomatic iTech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 6– so in the reply filed ... assessee was under a bona fide belief that its previous consultant had been handling the appellate proceedings and had even filed an appeal before the Tribunal, as was mentioned in the reply to the penalty notice uploaded by the consultant on 08.08.2023. The Counsel submitted that only upon receipt

Mallarpur Naisuva, Birbhum vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 764/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 13.02.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Kolkata on 13.02.2025 refusing grant approval ... granted to the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that the application filed

Mondal Education Trust, Hooghly vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 367/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 246ASection 250

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “The appellant being a Trust, filed the Return of Income ... ground of merit too, the appeal was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Authorised Representative had not filed