“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

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Renu Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

sale of shares as unexplained cash credit.” 4.1 Being aggrieved with the above finding of the ld. CIT (A), the revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds captioned herein above. 5. Before us, the ld. DR vide letter dated 09.07.2025 submitted the written submission which are reiterated

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

order. 7 Sh. Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), now the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities were not justified in making/confirming the addition

Shree Laxminarayan Education and Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 340/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

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

requisite details/explanation and to establish the genuineness of its activities. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called

Shree Kashtbhanjan Education and Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 339/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

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

Laxmanbhai Danumal Bhimani, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallaxmanbhai Danumal Bhimani, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. El-2, Surmaya Seven, Shilaj Ward 4, Nandoli Road, Nandoli, Kalol, Mehsana. Gandhinagar-382115 [Pan : Aebpb 5611 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, it was submitted that the assessee had responded to the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act and also

Trine Infracon LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1397/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltrine Infracon Llp, Vs. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co., Dcit, Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 201, Devashish Complex, Nr. Ahmedabad Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off. Cg Road, Ahmedabad-380009 [Pan :Aajft 2084 N] (Appellant Appellant Appellant) Appellant .. (Respondent Respondent Respondent) Respondent Appellant By : Appellant By : Appellant By : Appellant By : Shri Maulik Kansara, Ar Respondent By Respondent By: Respondent By Respondent By Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: Appellant byFor Respondent: Respondent by Respondent by Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69A

reconciliation furnished lacked clarity and proper supporting documentation. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee follows

Aarti Jadhav Gaikwad, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 742/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

income is justifiable. Hence, the Ground No. 5 of appeal raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed.” Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that while filing the return of income, in the foreign asset

Shri Balasaheb Wagh Welfare Foundation, Niphad vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 682/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Shukla

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. Order passed by Hon. CIT Exemption (Pune) is not according to law. It is unjust. 2. Justice

Shri Balasaheb Wagh Welfare Foundation, Niphad vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 681/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Shukla

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

Give Artisans Trust, Kolhapur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 337/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR, at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected

Chitrakar Deepak R. Patil Art Amd Culture Foundation, Raigad vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1292/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M Vaishampayan (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “On facts and in law. 1. The Hon'ble and Learned CIT Exemption), Pune erred in rejecting the application

Chitrakar Deepak R. Patil Art Amd Culture Foundation, Raigad vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M Vaishampayan (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

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

Manisha Dhananjay Holkar, Nashik vs. Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1204/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

case, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-appearance/non-compliance before

Dreams Belle Vue, Pune vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1158/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1157 & 1158/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2014-15 Dreams Belle Vue, 3Rd Floor, City Mall, University Road, Ganeshkind, Maharashtra-411007, Pan: Aaaad9013B अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ito, Ward-2(1), Pune Vs. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Kishor B Phadke Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore 01-09-2025 30-09-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 23.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2016-17 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. There Is A Delay Of 383 & 375 Days Respectively In Filing Of These Appeals Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Along With Application Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or Deliberate But Has Occurred For The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 383 and 375 days respectively in filing of these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit along with application explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same ... order of the AO. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-appearance/non-compliance before

Dreams Belle Vue, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Pune

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

ITA 1157/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

M/S. Kolte-Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune vs. PCIT - 4, Pune

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 41Section 41(1)

relevant observations of the Ld. PCIT read as under: 6 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1] The learned Pr. CIT erred in revising the asst. order u/s and directing the A.O. to verify

Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

ITA 2154/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 54BSection 63

Officer in the reopened assessment u/s.147 of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 7. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 8. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the similar assessment was done

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Thane. Aggrieved by the order of CIT-II, Thane rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 28.06.2007 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which ... been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order 30.09.2010 allowed the assessee’s appeal vacating the orders of lower authorities and remitting the matter to the file

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263