“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

M/S Anad Group of Business Money Transfer, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-4, Satara

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

ITA 1282/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 69A

result, the appeal is dismissed. Order passed under sec 250 read with sec. 251 of the Act. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR, at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC

Aam India Manufacturing Corporation Private Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1205/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 274Section 41(1)

result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5 ITA No.1205/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-appearance/non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam, Pune vs. Central Circle 2(4), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1005/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1-3 976/Pun/2025 Shri Vitthalrao Namdeo Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 978/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Asgpk7498A 4-7 979/Pun/2025 Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam Acit, 2016-17 980/Pun/2025 18, Sukhawani Fortune, Morwadi Central Circle 2017-18 1004/Pun/2025 Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2020-21 1005/Pun/2025 Pan: Abapk8131B 2018-19 8-10 981/Pun/2025 Smt. Sushma Balasaheb Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 983/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Ambpk0804D Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvaraj Chavan Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri B C Malakar and Yuvaraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar (virtual)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 151

same by observing as under: ITA Nos.1004 & 1005/PUN/2025 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Pune

Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam, Pune vs. Central Circle 2(4), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1004/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri B C Malakar and Yuvaraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar (virtual)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 151

Jeevan Vidyadan Shiksan V Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha, Shelpada, Thane vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2860/PUN/2024[- NA -]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kunik SoniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

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

fulfilled. 10. In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not respond

Mohd Noorul Huda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 843/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in both the appeals that, against the order passed under Section 147 r.w. Section 144 dated 17.03.2022, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 10.10.2023. In Form No.35, the assessee had provided the email ID mohdnoorulhuda513@gmail.com and opted not to receive communication by email. However, the CIT(A) sent the notices and the order under Section 250 to the old email ID noorulhuda80085@gmail.com, to which the asses

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 105 days in filing the captioned appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in both the appeals that, against the order passed under Section 147 r.w.s ... filing the appeals was only due to circumstances beyond his control and, therefore, prayed that the delay of 105 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal be condoned in the interest of justice and that the issue be decided on merits. 3. Shri Gurpreet Singh, learned Senior

Mohd Noorul Huda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 842/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in both the appeals that, against the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 dated 17.03.2022, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 10.10.2023. In Form No.35, the assessee had provided the email ID mohdnoorulhuda513@gmail.com and opted not to receive communication by email. However, the CIT(A) sent the notices and the order under Section 250 to the old email ID noorulhuda80085@gmail.com, to which the

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Suryadevara Radhakrishna, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 583/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68Section 69

crores under Section 69 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. submitted that, the learned A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) are erred

Kapa Sindhu Mitra, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 513/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.513/Hyd./2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2016-2017 Kapa Sindhu Mitra, 20148, Holly Hock Terrace, The Income Tax Officer – Ash Burn, V A, Vs. [Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad – 500 004. United States Of America. Pan Azcpk8030D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151A

facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 01 day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal : 3 ITA.No.513/Hyd./2024

Dgs Technical Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1095/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed by the A.O., the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is general in nature and does not require specific adjudication and thus, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 518/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena (in

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 37(1)

/Hyd./2022 And C.0.Nos.19, 20 & 21/Hyd./2025 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer was erred in disallowing ROC fee amounting ... deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 12.5 Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos. 2 to 4 of Revenue Appeal is deletion of addition

Bimla Devi Agrawal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

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

ITA 1690/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(15)Section 250

dated 28.06.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.04.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in dismissing the Ground No.1 taken ... filed and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 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. It was argued by the Ld. AR in the course

Koppal Ramachari Ramesh, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 1937/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri G. Akar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(x)

effective only for and from assessment year 2021-22 onwards. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper-book. In one set of paper-book, assessee has enclosed the notices issued during

Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 815/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)

application of income. The learned CIT(A) confirmed addition made by the AO and against Order of learned CIT(A) assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that both the authorities have confirmed opening balance. For verification of opening ... learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel filed letter which is as under: ITA Nos.814, 815/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 10. He further submitted that while giving

Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 814/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)

Techmill Technologies Private Limited, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Techmill Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 2Nd No.34, Floor, Ramanjaneya Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Complex, Hunsur Main Road, Mysuru. Manasagangothri, Mysuru – 570 006, Karnataka. Pan : Aadct 0474 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 40a

side. Accordingly, he confirmed the Order of the AO. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order of the learned CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the entire

Sandeep Kanunga, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)Ward-3(2), Bengaluru

In the result, addition made for the Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 1548/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 234E

reasons. Therefore, after relying on various judgments, he dismissed appeal and delay was not condoned. 6. Against the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR submitted that learned CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee since the appeal was not filed within 30 days

Sandeep Kanunga, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)Ward-3(2), Bangalore

In the result, addition made for the Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 1547/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 234E

Sandeep Kanunga, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)Ward-3(2), Bangalore

In the result, addition made for the Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 1546/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 234E

Seva Bharathi Trust, Chamarajanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagara

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

ITA 1486/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Seva Bharathi Trust, Vs. Ito, Sevabharathi College Campus, Ward –1, Chennipuradamole Road, Chamarajanagara. Chamarajanagara – 571 313. Pan : Aabts 6034 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vageesh Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vageesh Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 11Section 119Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139

case of Pr.CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd., (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC), did not allow exemption. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that filing of audit report within the due date