“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

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

confirmed. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 14. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT ... work, defect liability of the accidents to persons in relation to Workman Compensation Act, indemnity insurance of the workmen employed. The CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal considering such aspects of the tendered agreement, concurrently held that the assessee has entered into a development of infrastructure facility agreement

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 229/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 144/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Bababhai Sadarbhai Shaikh Ito, Ward 1, Nr Goraba Takies Jamkhed, Vs. Ahmednagar Ahmednagar – 413201 Pan: Hozps1445M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas P Bora Department By : Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-10-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) under Section 147 read with Section

Pushpa Devi Sobhasaria Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1884/KOL/2025[---]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.06.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(E), Kolkata, erred in law by rejecting the application made u/s 80G(5) (iii) of the Income ... with the I.T.A. No.: 1884/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. Pushpa Devi Sobhasaria Foundation. order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It is observed that the whole controversy arose because of incorrect

Tapas Kumar Sarkar, Barasat, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1873/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 250Section 40

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. Nos.: 1872 & 1873/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Tapas Kumar Sarkar. I. ITA No. 1872/KOL/2025 ... Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Tapas Kumar Sarkar. 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. CIT(A) issued several notices for hearing, in response

Tapas Kumar Sarkar, Barasat, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1872/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 250Section 40

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 69/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dismissed on account of delay as well. 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. Ground No. 1 is related to the issue involved being debatable

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1878/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1875/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

M/S. Utkarsh Orchardes Pvt. Ltd., Tiruvallur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1544/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1544/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

subject assessment year 2018-19”. :-5-: ITA. No: 1544/Chny/2025 8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had raised a legal ground (Ground No.1) stating there was no incriminating material found during the course of search

Srivaru Agro Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Manoj Mercantile Credit Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC-1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 98/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 250

appeal filed by the assessee was 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. DR submitted that the disallowance was to be limited

Saifa Molla, Bishnupur vs. ITO, Ward 26(3), Kolkata

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 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 the assessee is an individual

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai vs. Mohamed Muyeenuddin Pazhoor Kochu Mohamed, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 923/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 923/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Mohamed Muyeenuddin Income Tax, Vs. Pazhoor Kochu Mohamed, Central Circle 1(2), E1, 2Nd Main Road, Chennai. Juhu Beach, Sholinganallur S.O., Uthandi, Kanchipuram – 600 119. Pan: Aaipm 4366P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darshan Bothra, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri Darshan Bothra, CA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 194Section 250

grounds 10 and 11 are partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved by the above directions of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.DR strongly relied on the grounds raised. 6. The Ld.AR on the other hand submitted that the CIT(A) has passed

Tirumaiah Sunil, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1285/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

Rs.10,22,000, he came to know and consulted a CA, who advised him to file the appeal. Immediately thereafter the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which has caused the delay. Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse but it is a sufficient cause for not doing

Yuvak Pratishthan, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 3347/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta- Advocate

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

revised Form 10B before the issuance of intimation under section 143(1) and not during the appellate stage. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of FAA. 4. The first contention of the ld. AR is that in assessee's case the Audit Report has been

Geetha Mehra, Chennai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground raised in this regard is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4065/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant S. Ghumare, AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the addition/disallowances made by the AO against which the assessee went on further appeal before the Tribunal. The Ms. Geetha Mehra Tribunal passed a combined order on 31.07.2012 for AY 2002-03 to 2007-08 and 2008-09 restoring the issue of additions

Star Track Footwear Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5250/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Star Track Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(2), 10714, Jandewalan Road, New Delhi Nabi Karim, New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan:-Aalcs3783N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Sri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA & Sri AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 37Section 68

reasonable, as it accounts for possible material movement while addressing the non-genuine source. This ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved, Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have perused the paper book filed by the assessee consisting of pages 1 to 210. First

Sri Sri Laxmi Sri Sri Narayan and Sri Sri Kali Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 733/KOL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 160Section 164Section 164(1)Section 2Section 250Section 3

rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 6. The assessee contended that