← 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

Justin Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1293/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Justin Tradelink Private Limited. order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR brought

Kamlawati Chowhan, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1247/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance on consecutive dates, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. The assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the authorities below passed the orders without affording a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claim with supporting evidence. The assessee, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer.

Section 131Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

However, due to non-compliance on consecutive dates, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. The assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, contending that the authorities below passed the orders without affording a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claim with supporting evidence. The assessee, therefore

Shyam Greenfield Developer Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

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 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... confirmed. In result the appeal is hereby 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

Shree Capital Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1152/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 253(3)

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. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shree Capital Services Ltd. 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 requested that the matter may be remanded

M/S. Rotary Club of Hooghly Welfare Trust, Hooghly vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1041/KOL/2025[-----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 07.03.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for registration for technical mistake in selecting correct code ... accordingly cancelled/dropped the application as non- maintainable. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the facts of the case. During the course of the appeal, though

M/S Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.Ci.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1640/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1521/KOL/2019: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” 2.1. The assessee is also in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: II. ITA No. 1640/KOL/2019: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

D.Ci.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1521/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1521/KOL/2019: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” 2.1. The assessee is also in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: II. ITA No. 1640/KOL/2019: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Darshan Pradip Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4841/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ashok SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250

order dated 29.05.2025 dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. Aggrieved, with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is considered the appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that in this case the appeal was filed in 2012 and till 2017 physical hearings were attended

Grameen Pragati Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 4840/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

assessee. 3.3 Against the order of rejection dated 25.06.2025 issued by CIT(E) in Form 10AD, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us ld. AR has submitted that Mrs. Neeta Dewang Neralla, trustee and w/o Mr. Dewang Neralla, the main trustee, was suffering from cancer

Sehgal Path Lab, Andheri West vs. ITO, Circle 17(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4830/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrisehgal Path Lab Vs. Ito, Circle 17(1) 103, Yashodhan It Sehgal Circle 17(1), Path Lab, Azad Nagar, S.O, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400053. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abxfs0461M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed –CA &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

otherwise credited as business receipts if they are unexplained.” Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has made detailed submissions reiterating the arguments made before ld. CIT(A). It has been argued that the increase

Income Tax Officer-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rbi Employees Bhagvati Coop Housing Society Ltd, Mulund East, Mumbai

ITA 4073/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

hands of the Assessee was deleted. C.O. No.243/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2011-2012 6. Being aggrieved the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground to produce in paragraph 2 above. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. 8. During

Income Tax Officer-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rbi Employees Bhagvati Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mulund East, Mumbai

ITA 3595/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

hands of the Assessee was deleted. C.O. No.243/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2011-2012 6. Being aggrieved the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground to produce in paragraph 2 above. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. 8. During

Shamkris Charity Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3394/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadangms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. AR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

application belatedly and that the objects of the trust contain, clauses which enables potential application of funds outside India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Ld. CIT(E). 3. There is a delay of 19 days the filing the appeal before the Tribunal

ITO 19.2.4, Mumbai vs. Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2989/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar
Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

noted as allowed. 5. Accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) have partial relief to the assessee. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the evidences submitted with

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. S Vinodkumar Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2282/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 92B

Year 2009-2010 03/08/2020] and 2010-2011 [ITA No.79/Mum/2015, dated [ITA No.5710/Mum/2016, dated 14/12/2022]. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 6. During the course of hearing the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. S Vinodkumar Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2281/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 92B

Year 2009-2010 03/08/2020] and 2010-2011 [ITA No.79/Mum/2015, dated [ITA No.5710/Mum/2016, dated 14/12/2022]. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 6. During the course of hearing the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that

Sachin Shrikant Naik, Santacruz East, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: 03/09/2025
Section 69A

explanation for the cash payment necessitated the addition under ent necessitated the addition under section section 69.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)4, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1787/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar
Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

noted as allowed. 5. Accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) have partial relief to the assessee. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the evidences submitted with

Jayanthy Venkata Ramamurthy, Gautam Budha Nagar vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Gautam Budha Nagar

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5497/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Jayanthy Venkata Ramamurthy, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3)(1), D-68, Sector-40, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, Noida (Pan: Adapj2155L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148

parties and perused the records. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application alongwith supporting affidavit for Condonation of Delay stating therein that the delay was occurred ... hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, before the Tribunal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute and proceeded further. 4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that

Rahul Saini, Noida vs. Assessing Officer ITO, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3469/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3469/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2016-17) Rahul Saini, Flat No. 1503, 15Th Floor, Tower-H, Exotica Fresco Plot No. 05A, Noida, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh 201304 Pan: Bqpps-8886-J बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, A 2 D, Sector-24, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Noida,Uttar Pradesh 201307 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Sarad Shandillya, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.05.2025, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri Sarad Shandillya, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessing Officer (Ao) In Violation Of Principal Of Nature Justice Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Making Submissions Has Passed Assessment Order Making The Addition Of Rs.20,14,150/- U/S.69 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Ld. Ar Submits That The Ao

For Appellant: Shri Sarad Shandillya, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

natural justice. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A), but failed to get the desired relief. Hence, present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On merits of the addition, the ld. AR submits that the addition has been made by the AO u/s.56