← 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

Disha Jay Thakkar, Dahisar East vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-45, Mumbai, Delhi

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

ITA 2497/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250

from the Investigation Wing, ld. CIT(A) upheld the same, dismissing the assessee's contention. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has reiterated the assessee's submission that she had been cheated by Shri. Narendra R. Shah

Rahi Motor Transport Co, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 23(3), Mumbai

ITA 1845/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Rahi Motor Transport Co, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 23(3), Mumbai

ITA 1844/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Invesco Holding Company (Us) Inc., Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 846/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.846/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Inveso Holding Company (Us) Inc., C/O Invesco (India) P. Ltd., 15Th Floor, Block 6, North Tower, Divyasree Orion Sez, Raidurgam, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telangana 5000032 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaeci-9027-N बनाम Vs. Assisnat Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 2(1)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Ankul Goyal & Advitya Grover, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2024 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Shri Ankul Goyal, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Solitary Issue In Present Appeal Is Against The Addition Of Rs.54,85,23,539/- In Respect Of Reimbursement Of Cost For Providing It/Support Services Treated As Fee

For Appellant: S/Shri Ankul Goyal & Advitya GroverFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

well. Similar, additions were made by the AO in AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.784/Del/2023. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.07.2024 deleted the said additions. In the subsequent assessment year i.e. AY 2021-22, the assessee ... carried the same issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.3225/Del/2023, the Coordinate Bench following the decision rendered in AY 2020-21 deleted the additions vide order dated 02.04.2025. The factual matrix in the impugned assessment year is identical. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in para

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 595/DEL/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit Vs Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1 Flat No.14, Ground Floor A.R.T.O Complex Dda Mig, Suraj Sector-33, Noida Apartment, Pul Pehlad Pur New Delhi-110044 Pan-Aaccb7981J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Chandra, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Veersain Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

vide order dated 20.11.2024, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether on facts and circumstance of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A)-3, Noida

Indo Plastic Co, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 49(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5481/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Mago, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 148Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/ NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) erred in holding that the principle of natural justice were not violated by denial of access

Kapoor Industries Limited, Mehrauli vs. CPC, Bengaluru(Currently Assessed With DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4498/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalkapoor Industries Limited Vs Cpc, Bengluru 29A-2/1, Desu Road, Mehrauli Delhi-110030 Pan-Aaeck6613N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv., Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Shri Mirza Baig, Ca & Shri Sarthak, Ca Respondent By Adjournment By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 132Section 132BSection 143(1)Section 234Section 250

vide impugned order dt. 14.7.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Centralized Processing Center

Cpi India I Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1826/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.1826/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2018-19) Cpi India I Ltd. C/O Vasa Chauhan & Associates, Off. No. 41, 3Rd Floor, Hi Life Premises, P M Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400054 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadcc-1505-G बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(2)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, (Through Vc) & Ms. Kashish Gupta, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2025 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Tax Resident Of Mauritius. The Assesee Is An Investment Holding Company. The Assessee Has Obtained Global Business License From The Financial

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, (Through VC) &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 112(1)(c)Section 147Section 48

relevant to AY 2016-17. The AO disallowed assessee’s claim for the similar reasons, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.382/Del/2023. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.2023 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The ld. AR referring to the draft Assessment

Laxman Singh Solanki (Firm), Pali vs. ITO, Pali

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

ITA 795/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 194C

appeal was dismissed without examining the merits of the assessment. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds without affording the assessee

Shyam Lal Suthar, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 791/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

evidence from the U.S. entity. Therefore the investment remained unexplained. 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition is legally unsustainable as the assessment order does not mention

Umrav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar

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

ITA 783/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

proceedings and has been completely non-responsive.” 6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal on limitation, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, though an email request for adjournment was received

Umrav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar

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

ITA 782/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

proceedings and has been completely non-responsive.” 6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal on limitation, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, though an email request for adjournment was received

Umrav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar

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

ITA 781/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Gupta, CA (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 69A

proceedings and has been completely non-responsive.” 6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal on limitation, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, though an email request for adjournment was received

Mahendra Singh Rathore, Bilara vs. Ld. AO Ward 3(5), Jodhpur

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

ITA 515/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed Major Additions Except Partly Allowing Deduction U/S 80C.

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 69ASection 80C

confirmed major additions except partly allowing deduction u/s 80C. 4. Against the order of the Ld CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with notices

Gen Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with directions as above

ITA 408/JODH/2023[2017-189]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-189

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

dismissed the appeal ex parte on 08.08.2023, confirming the assessment. 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed without

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur vs. Kalawati Devi, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal-CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

jurisdiction under section 153A in respect of a completed assessment. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the phenomenal rise in the price of the scrip

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur vs. Vinesh Kumar Balar, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal-CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

jurisdiction under section 153A in respect of a completed assessment. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the phenomenal rise in the price of the scrip

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur vs. Sohanraj Balar, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 288/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal-CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

jurisdiction under section 153A in respect of a completed assessment. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the phenomenal rise in the price of the scrip

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur vs. Praveen Balar, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 287/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal-CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

jurisdiction under section 153A in respect of a completed assessment. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the phenomenal rise in the price of the scrip

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh, Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has argued on the legal aspect of the matter on the grounds contained in the memorandum