← 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

Rucha Consultancy LLP, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2358/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 250Section 69C

2486/Mum/2025 Rucha Consultancy LLP order of the ld. CIT(A) for AY 2019-20 is also challenged in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 2759/M/25. However, the reasoning contained therein is just and proper and therefore the addition made by the AO be deleted. 10. On the contrary

Sameer Ramesh Vashi, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sameer Ramesh Vashi Vs The Principal Commissioner 702, Samrock Apartment, C.D. Of Income Tax, Barfiwala Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai-17 Mumbai - 400058 [Pan: Aaapv6356Q] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order Of Pcit, Mumbai–17, Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024- 25/1070374871(1), Dated 14.11.2024 Passed U/S. 263 Against The Assessment Order By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 14.03.2023 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Pcit, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 & Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dt 24-03-2021 Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Hence Directed The Ao To Reframe The Assessment.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

frame 5 Sameer Ramesh Vashi AY 2018-19 the assessment de novo. Aggrieved by the revisionary order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the second round. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above stated facts. He also referred to various notices issued u/s.142

Incomet Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Deepak Govindbhai Gangani, Mumbai

ITA 5945/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 144Section 147Section 148

allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made in the hands of the Assessee. 5. Being aggrieved the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. 6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none was present on behalf

Sanjay, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5952/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5952/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca, M. R. Sahu, Ward-4(1), House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-122050 School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Eqsps3018G Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca & Sh. Sudhir Yadav, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Sh Raj Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO Ward -5, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5449/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Raj Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, 1107/34, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak Rohtak-124001 Haryana (Pan: Bfypk0435H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073567557(1) dated 21.02.2025. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 125 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. For this purpose, the assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay due to the fact that Accountant Sh. Jogender Kumar ... sides and perusing the records, I am of the view that reasonable reasons has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the tribunal, hence, the same is hereby condoned and proceed further. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is running petrol pump

Smt. Sobha Rani, Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 35(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5429/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Yudhistet Mehtani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)

sides and perused the records. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is delay of 1 day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Upon hearing the parties and perusing the records, I am of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/ NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR for the assessee has raised the legal issue and stated that the limitation proceedings are barred by limitation and thus void ab initio

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1885/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

Business income) ITA No.-1885/Del/2025 NCR Global Solu"ons Ltd. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, on the following grounds of appeal: “ Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NCR Global Solutions Limited ("Appellant) respectfully craves

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for earlier assessment years. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred ... rejected such method of accounting and computed profit on each individual sale of flat even though the project had not been completed. On appeal, the Chennai Tribunal held that project completion method adopted by the assessee was correct and recognized method of accounting. The relevant extract of the said judgment

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for earlier assessment years. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred ... rejected such method of accounting and computed profit on each individual sale of flat even though the project had not been completed. On appeal, the Chennai Tribunal held that project completion method adopted by the assessee was correct and recognized method of accounting. The relevant extract of the said judgment

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for earlier assessment years. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred ... rejected such method of accounting and computed profit on each individual sale of flat even though the project had not been completed. On appeal, the Chennai Tribunal held that project completion method adopted by the assessee was correct and recognized method of accounting. The relevant extract of the said judgment

Dlf Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for earlier assessment years. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred ... rejected such method of accounting and computed profit on each individual sale of flat even though the project had not been completed. On appeal, the Chennai Tribunal held that project completion method adopted by the assessee was correct and recognized method of accounting. The relevant extract of the said judgment

Dlf Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for earlier assessment years. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred ... rejected such method of accounting and computed profit on each individual sale of flat even though the project had not been completed. On appeal, the Chennai Tribunal held that project completion method adopted by the assessee was correct and recognized method of accounting. The relevant extract of the said judgment

Akhilesh Singhal, Rishikesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rishikesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

vide order dated 03.04.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That in facts and circumstances of the case, re-opening of the assessment is non-jurisdictional

Rajendra Kumar Sahi, Ranchi vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

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

ITA 148/RAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajendra Kumar Sahi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Hulhundu, Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. [Pan: Agkps0098L] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Jharkhand….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 07.08.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,96,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As The Assessee Had Disclosed Comparatively Low Income Against Receipts On Which Tcs Had Been Deducted. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted A Possibility That The Assessee Had Shown Low Income In Order To Reduce Taxable Profits. It Was Also Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Significantly Higher Tds In The Revised Itr. Therefore, The Ao Intended To Verify The Genuineness Of The Additional Tds Claim & Whether The Corresponding Receipts Had Been Offered To Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices. Consequently, The Ao

Section 250

condone the delay. Thus, the appeal was dismissed without examining the merits of the case. 4. The assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the CIT(A). However, despite consecutive notices issued by the Registry, none appeared on behalf of the assessee

Orchid Corp, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1119/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1119/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Orchid Corp., Vs. Ito, F-11, Orchid Ventura, Nr. New Lp Ward - 1(1)(1), Savani School, Palanpore Canal Surat Road, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaffo2395F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025

Section 10B(8)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80ASection 80I

Supreme Court in case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) and dismissed the grounds. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted paper books including acknowledgement of ITR-5 for AY 2021-22, acknowledgement of filing audit report

Sathyanarayana Saka, Someswaram vs. Assessing Officer, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 488/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 131Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri KSS Sarma, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition towards

Sathyanarayana Saka, Someswaram vs. Assessing Officer, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 487/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 131Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri KSS Sarma, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition towards

Lakshmi Narayana Kotha, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 482/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 106 days in filing the captioned appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler ... both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We find that the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bonafide and come under reasonable cause. We further find

Lakshmi Narayana Kotha, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 481/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 106 days in filing the captioned appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler ... both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We find that the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bonafide and come under reasonable cause. We further find

Lakshmi Narayana Kotha, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 480/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 106 days in filing the captioned appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler ... both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We find that the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bonafide and come under reasonable cause. We further find