← 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

Sri Tirumala Estates, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1086/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

disallowance of commission expenses and land development expenses. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) of the assessee’s appeal

Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd., Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 711/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 711/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income ... Soudhara Pathina vs ITO in ITA No. 969/Bang/2023. 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. The Ld. AR submitted that proper opportunity was not provided

Sarang Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1230/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 68

instant appeal within 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: “1. For that the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) faceless has erred in by not deleting ... result, the appeal is 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. The Ld. AR submitted that proper opportunity was not provided

Malay Dey, Alipurduar vs. A.O., Ward 2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1055/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Assessing Officer, Malay Dey Assessment Unit, Arabindanagar (Beltala), Income Tax Department Alipurduar, P.O.& Dist. New Town, College Road, Vs. Alipurduar-736122 Alipurduar, Ward No.2(3), West Bengal P.O. & Dist. Alipurduar, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiopd6705B

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR

details can now be produced before the Tribunal. As the assessee has given sufficient cause for delay, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits. 05. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that there

Kala Diksha, Chennai vs. CIT, Exmeptions, Chennai

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

ITA 2241/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E) rejecting application for registration u/s.12AB of the Act, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue raised is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Kalasadhanalaya

Puthiya Bharathi Foundation, Chennai, Tamilnadu vs. Commissioner of Incometax (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 2201/CHNY/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Kalpana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act as not maintainable. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10AB before

Arjun Shetty, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Tps, Circle - 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Arjun Shetty, Vs. Ito, 16-6-393/9 Shubha Krishna Building, Ward – Tps, Highland Falnir, Mangalore - 575002. Circle – 1(1), Pan :Ainps5294H Mangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Nilanjan Dey,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

accept submissions of the assessee and dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he has filed written synopsis which is as under: 1. The appellant

Narayana Singh Chaya Kumari, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 415/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Narayana Singh Chaya Kumari, Vs. Ito, #34, 8Th Cross, Saraswathipuram, Ward – 6(2)(2), Bangalore – 560 096. Bangalore. Pan : Ajxpk 5639 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Likith Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Likith Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

dismissed appeal of the assessee on the basis of material available before him. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the AO and submitted that notice issued by the CIT(A) might have settled in spam

Naayidolle Shivalingaiah Pradeepa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1597/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Naayidolle Shivalingaiah Pradeepa, Vs. Ito, 35376 376, 1St Cross, 17Th Main Road, Ward – 5(2)(4), Muneshwara Block, Srinagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 026. Pan : Chxpp 3704 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

against penalty Order on 26.11.2021. The learned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that assessee filed appeal against 144 Order before learned CIT(A) on 19.02.2020 and the learned

Shri. G K Ravi, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2269/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware

Shri. G K Ravi, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2268/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware

Shri. G K Ravi, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware

Shri. G K Ravi, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2266/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Si. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware

Shri. G K Ravi, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2265/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware

Shri. G. K Ravi, Bangalore vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 2264/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware

Gottigere Krishnappa Ravi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle-1(4), Bangalroe

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1355/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware

Gottigere Krishnappa Ravi, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 1159/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed having being rendered infructuous

ITA 6461/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

No.123/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2026-2027 commercial in nature, devoid of any element of charity. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 7. When the appeal was taken up for hearing Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

Bombay Tyres, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres Vs Income-Tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [Pan: Aagcb1604E] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar & Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), Dated 26.10.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.06.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144A Dated 28Th June, 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar and Shri Gopal Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

assessee but to a non-existent entity. 3. There is a delay of 460 days noted by the registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which an affidavit and petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. In the petition for condonation of delay, the explanation ... proceedings before the ld. AO to give effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A) instead of going ahead with filing the appeal before the Tribunal, against the direction of the ld. CIT(A). The order giving effect was passed by ld. AO on 30.01.2025, wherein

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Narayan Dalpatram Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3619/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Narayan Dalpatram Income-Tax - 4(3)(1), Thakkar Mumbai Abhay Bldg, 5Th Floor, Ns 9Th Rdm Jvpd Scheme, Juhu Vile Parle (W), Mumbai - 400032 [Pan: Aaipt0713F] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Parag Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 9, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Cit(A)-9/Cir.4/529/2015-16, Dated 17.03.2016 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4(3)(1), U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.01.2016 For Ay 2008-09. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Ao To Delete The Addition Made Towards Unexplained Unsecured Loan Of Rs.65,00,000/- U/S.68 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri Parag Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

discharged the onus u/s. 68 by proving the identity and creditworthiness of the lender companies and genuineness of the transactions. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the relief so granted by the ld. CIT(A) by putting its contention that ld. CIT(A) overlooked the evidence