“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

Amit Saini, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra, Haryana, Ward-I, Kuk

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

ITA 929/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite several notices under Section 250 being issued electronically to the registered e-mail address, there was no compliance by the assessee. The CIT(A), therefore, proceeded ex parte and held that the assessee had failed to substantiate his grounds of appeal or file any documentary evidence in support of his claim. 7.1 The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the addition under Section 144 of the Act since the assessee had not availed the

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 44A

Assessing Officer was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIt(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the authorities below erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,25,364/- without

Yogesh Chander & Sons HUF, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 625/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the CPC holding that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, namely (i) filing of declaration with the deductor, and (ii) reporting of tax deduction by the deductor in the name of the other person.

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 250

deductor in the name of the other person. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR reiterated the factual background and submitted that the procedural requirements under Rule 37BA(2) have

Rajinder Kumar Garg, Patiala, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, and the addition stands restricted to Rs

ITA 607/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

evidence and was against normal human conduct. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the lower authorities had disbelieved the assessee’s explanation on mere conjectures

Bhagwant Kaur, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148rSection 251(1)(a)Section 69

verification. The appeal was thus dismissed for statistical purposes. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the order

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 343 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम The DCIT H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh Circle 1(1), Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACO4024H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 988 /Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 M/s Orbit Resorts Limited बनाम H.No. 256, Sector 9C, Chandigarh The DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

upheld the addition made by the Internet Assessing Officer. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing Ld. AR argued that income of the non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India

M/S Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9

Yogi Shri Mukunpuriji Maharaj Seva Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1633/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarita Nos. 1632 & 1633/Ahd/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Ahmedabad vide order dated 19.02.2024 in Form No. 10AD. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal being ITA No. 764/Ahd/2024. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that the applicant/appellant had filed a fresh application in Form 10AB

Yogi Shri Mukunpuriji Maharaj Seva Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1632/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarita Nos. 1632 & 1633/Ahd/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Crystal Mercantiles Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

ITA 957/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 58A

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 21.05.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Appeal Order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

fling these appeals were that the counsel was not aware of the Tribunal matters and therefore, did not advise assessee to prefer the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT (A). It is only subsequently in the first week of May 2025, that some other taxation matter

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1037/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2) (Now DCIT, Cent.Cir. 4(2)), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Hitesh Shashikant Jhaveri, Borivali West vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4344/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri & Hitesh Shashikantjhaveri Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of A/304, Alanknanda Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1) Building, 51St Tps Road, C41-43, G Block Bkc, Near Veer Sawarkar Garden, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Borivali (West), Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Adepj1181A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri RaghunathSarangapaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi- Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

However, assessee’s appeal was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 03.06.2025. The assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is a regular trader in scrips on the stock

Hitesh Shashikant Jhaveri, Borivali West vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri RaghunathSarangapaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi- Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

DCIT, Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3623/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(4)(vii)

appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of the aforesaid amount. Against this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We find that in assessment year 1995-96 the Assessing Officer in identical manner had added provision for doubtful debts ... directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the decision rendered in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, 323 ITR 166 (SC) upheld the findings of CIT(A) and dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue

DCIT CC -15, New Delhi vs. Alok Dhir, New Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed as low tax involved

ITA 4093/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv

Section 153C

present appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs.60,00,000/- fixed in CBDT Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appeal of Revenue is protected by any of the exceptions to the aforesaid circular. Thus

DCIT CC -15, New Delhi vs. Alok Dhir, New Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed as low tax involved

ITA 4092/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv

Section 153C

Firoz Alam, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur

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

ITA 346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalfiroz Alam, Income Tax Officer, Quila Nawab Ganj, Ward-3(3), Saharanapur. Chakrata Road, Vs. Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001. Pan-Afspa9199P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10273096 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment Was Reopened On The Basis Of The Information That Assessee Has Made Transaction Of Rs. 94,76, 190/- With A Company Who Was Indulged In Purchases & Sales Only On Papers Without Actual Moment Of Goods. Accordingly, The Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed & Notice U/S 148 Was Issued After Obtaining The Approval From The Competent Authorities. During The Firoz Alam Vs. Ito Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, The Assessee Never Appeared Nor Filed Any Reply Before The Ao And, Therefore, The Ao Proceed To Complete The Assessment Exparte By Making The Addition Of Rs.94,76,190/- As Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Towards The Purchases Made From Two Parties.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 221(1)Section 69C

were the sufficient cause for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. 4. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein various grounds of appeal were taken which include the ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before

Jindal Poly Films Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3990/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royasstt. Yr: 2006-07

Section 132Section 139(5)Section 143Section 14ASection 153ASection 234ASection 263

observing that the same was not claimed before the AO. Aggrieved against the order of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal being ITA No. 3990/Del/2016, wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 25.08.2023 quashed the assessment, inter alia, by observing as under: “8. Before us the Counsel