“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

Surabhi Shodh Sansthan, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year2017-18 Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Vs. Dcit, Circle Exemp-2(1), 1428 Maliwara , Chandni Civic Centre, Minto Road, Chowk Delhi 110006 New Delhi Pan No.Aapts1404B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Form 10 is upheld and grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 6. Ld. AR submitted that the Form 10 was uploaded before framing the assessment order. The Ld. AR drawing our attention

Narmada Trust, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3034/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 Narmada Trust B-60/61 C/O Vs. Income Tax Officer Circle Bajaj Auto Limited Naraina, 25 (1) Industrial Area Phase-Ii New Delhi Mitraon Naraina Industrial Estate South West Delhi 110028 New Delhi Pan No. Aaatn0321K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 111ASection 12Section 143(1)

order dated 06-03-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee is a charitable trust and is engaged in the charitable activities

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi vs. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Lucknow

In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3020/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Dcit, Central Circle-17, Vs. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Delhi Gokhley Marg Room No. 244, Ara Lucknow Centre, Jhandewalan Uttar Pradesh-226001 Extension, New Delhi

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

section 153C of the Income Tax Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR reiterate the contention raised in the aforesaid grounds of appeal and requested to allow

DCIT, Central Circle-17, Delhi vs. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Lucknow

In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3019/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

Wudstay Travels Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2996/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Wudstay Travels Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited D8/4 First Floor, Of Income Tax Circle 25 (1) Exclusive Floors Dlf Phase New Delhi -5 Gurgaon Dlf Qe So Gurgaon Pan No. Aabcw6379A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 69

vide his order dated 02- 04-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal ground no.4 and stated that first notice u/s 148 was issued

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Karnal Agricultural Industries Limited, Delhi

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4543/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, FCA & Sh. Akash OjhaFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69

appeal before the NFAC, who vide its impugned order 01.08.2024 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. DR has submitted that in the instant case the AO has passed the order u/s. 147 r.w.s

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Karnal Agricultural Industries Limited, Delhi

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4542/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, FCA & Sh. Akash OjhaFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Karnal Agricultural Industries Limited, Delhi

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4541/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, FCA & Sh. Akash OjhaFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Karnal Agricultural Industries Limited, Delhi

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4526/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, FCA & Sh. Akash OjhaFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69

ACIT(E) Circle -1(1) New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Harpyari Devi Welfare Society, Delhi

ITA 4361/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 24-07-2024 partly allowed the appeal against which the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Departmental representative (DR) submitted that the agriculture land was purchased more than the twice circle rate. The Assessing Officer

Kavya Saurabh Rastogi, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3773/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarkavya Saurabh Rastogi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Vishwa Autar Jamani, Moradabad A-61, Lajpat Nagar, Moradbad, Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Pan: Aipr8080J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 50CSection 54

hence, we are proceeding exparte qua the assessee. It is also noted that there is a delay of 234 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After perusing the application for condonation and its supporting affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that reasonable cause ... NFAC who vide its order dated 31.10.2023 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. We note that the AO has observed that during the assessment proceedings

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kdp Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Noida

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

ITA 2177/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. M Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Central Circle, Vs. Kdp Infrastructure Ghaziabad Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, D-247/29, Sector-63, Cgo Complex-I, Hapur Gautam Budh Nagar, Chungi, Ghaziabad Noida, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh -201002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 68

dated 05-03-2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned authorized representative for Department submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a well reasoned order, as assessee did not file

Xlri Alumuni Association, Jamshedpur vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Jamshedpur

ITA 308/RAN/2024[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.308/Ran/2024 Xlri Alumuni Association ….……………............................……….……Appellant Xlri Campus, C H Area East, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831001. [Pan: Aaaax0042N] Vs. Ito (Exemption), Jamshedpur...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(Exemption), Patna [“Cit(Exemption)”] Dated 25.05.2024 Rejecting The Application In Form 10Ab For Registration U/S 12A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed An Application In Form No. 10Ab Seeking Regular Registration Under Clause (Iii) Of Sub- Section (1)(Ac) Of Section 12A, Read With Section 12Ab(1)(B) Of The Act. The Said Application Was Filed For Continuation Of Registration Previously Granted Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Vi), Vide Form 10Ac Dated 23.09.2021, For The Assessment Years 2022–23 To 2024–25. 3. During The Course Of Proceedings Under Section 12Ab, The Learned Cit (Exemption) Examined The Objects & Genuineness Of The Activities Of The Applicant Institution & To Verify Compliance With Statutory Requirements, Called Upon The Assessee To Furnish The Following Details: Note On Activities Undertaken During Financial Years 2020–21, 2021–22

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

vide Form 10AC dated 23.09.2021 was cancelled. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (Exemption), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising various grounds. The primary contention of the assessee is that the learned CIT (Exemption) has rejected the application in a summary manner

Sangam Almirah Private Limited, Muzaffarpur vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 338/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

dated 10.06.2025, which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 270A of the Act, dated 10.02.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders of the authorities below are bad in law and fact. 2. For that ... 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 submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR before us that

Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

Agarwal evidence in support of the said expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), both assessee and revenue have filed cross-appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Since the jurisdictional issue is raised by the appellant, we shall first take up appellant’s appeal in ITA No.168/SRT/2025. In ground

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat vs. Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

Income Tax Officer(TDS), Alappuzha vs. Muthoot Health Care Private Limited, Kozhencherry

Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. Thus, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 517/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Thomson Thomas, CA

Section 192Section 194Section 194(2)Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

were not attracted. 6. Being aggrieved by the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing, both the sides reiterated the stand taken before the authorities below. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration

Abhishek Tripathi, Jhinjhak Kanpur Dehat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 489/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Abhishek Tripathi V. The Ito Ward No.15, Shankarganj Ward 1(3)(1) Jhinjhak Kanpur Kanpur Dehat (U.P) Tan/Pan:Atjpt8479N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

granted. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical ... Hospital, Kanpur and, thereafter, the assessee was advised to take complete rest. In view of these facts, the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. He prayed that the delay be kindly condoned and the appeal be heard on merits

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Vikramjot Basti, Vikramjot vs. Inocme Tax Officer Basti -New, Income Tax Office Basti

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 486/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there is a delay of 144 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 22.07.2025 for condonation of delay, stating therein that the impugned order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority ... First Appellate Authority and, thereafter, immediately the ITA No.486/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 15 assessee collected all the relevant details and filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The prayer of the assessee was that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it was beyond the control

Devika Singh, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 479/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Devika Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 1(1) B-1529, Indira Nagar Lucknow - New Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Cmips8743J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Fca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

mind. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 105 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 14.07.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein