← 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

Sama Sangeeta Reddy Rep. by Gpa Holder Sama Sunil Kumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 680/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 ITA.No.680/Hyd./2025 5. CA, K A Sai Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated

Bhagya Laxmi Gems and Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, A. SrinivasFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

Bhattacharjee & Anr. 10 CTR 354. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.647/Hyd./2025 5. CA, A. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the assessee has furnished details before the Assessing Officer. However

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 513/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

delete the additions made towards disallowance of loss. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. MS U. Mini Chandran, learned CIT-DR for the Revenue, submitted that, the assessment has been 7 ITA.Nos.511, 512 & 513/Hyd./2025

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 512/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

delete the additions made towards disallowance of loss. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. MS U. Mini Chandran, learned CIT-DR for the Revenue, submitted that, the assessment has been 7 ITA.Nos.511, 512 & 513/Hyd./2025

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. B T T Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 511/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Ch. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

delete the additions made towards disallowance of loss. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. MS U. Mini Chandran, learned CIT-DR for the Revenue, submitted that, the assessment has been 7 ITA.Nos.511, 512 & 513/Hyd./2025

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1207/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

addition of Rs.0.07 lakhs. Page 4 of 78 5. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and no arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1110/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition seeking for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that, the Company is under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ... assessee company in any manner. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that, the delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may please be condoned in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, learned

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1088/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

lakhs and sustained the addition of Rs.0.07 lakhs. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general in nature and no arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1087/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

addition of Rs.0.07 lakhs. Page 4 of 78 5. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and no arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1086/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

addition of Rs.0.07 lakhs. Page 4 of 78 5. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and no arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1085/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

lakhs and sustained the addition of Rs.0.07 lakhs. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general in nature and no arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support

Ace Tyres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1084/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

addition of Rs.0.07 lakhs. Page 4 of 78 5. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and no arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support

Vibha Agrotech Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue and appeal of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 331/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

Form-3CL to claim deduction. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessee and Revenue are now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8 ITA.Nos.289 & 331/Hyd./2016 7. The only issue that came-up for our consideration from grounds of appeal of Revenue is, deletion

DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Vibha Agrotech Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue and appeal of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 289/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

Form-3CL to claim deduction. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessee and Revenue are now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8 ITA.Nos.289 & 331/Hyd./2016 7. The only issue that came-up for our consideration from grounds of appeal of Revenue is, deletion

Pranoo Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4580/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Sruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Assessing Officer. 5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above 6. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 7. There

Vinay Dalchand Mehta, Dombivali vs. Income Tax Officer Pne-W-(75)(94), Kalyan

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

ITA 4430/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrivinay Dalchand Mehta Income Tax Officer Pne Flat No. 7, Moreshwar Cooperative Ward (75)(94) Vs. Housing Society Limited, R.P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Dombivli, 421201 Kalyan Murbad Road, Above Canara Bank, Kalyan 421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpm0583F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Sumedh Hinge /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Sumedh HingeFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR
Section 2Section 250Section 44A

dismissed ex-parte non-attendance vide order dated 27.03.2025. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the matter may be remanded back to give one more opportunity to the assessee to properly

Hirabai & Hormusji Jiwanivakil Model School Trust, Dahanu Road vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 4137/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.4137/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Hirabai & Hormusji V/S. Income Tax Officer, Jiwanivakil Model बिाम Exemption Ward, Thane School Trust Income Tax Officer, Near Chandra Takies, Exemption Ward, Thane Masoli, Dahanu Road, 400604 Palghar 401602 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaath1536J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.04.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. It Is Submitted That The Order Imposing Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-Dated 28.06.2019 [Itba/Pnl/7271(1)(B)/2019-20/1016563977(1)] Is Bad In Law & Is Required To Be Held As Illegal As The Penalty Order Is Under The Signature Of Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ito Exemption Ward, Thane. However, The Demand Notice Has Been Issued On 27.06.2019 By Mr. Prashant Singh, Ito Exemption Ward, Thane, I.E. One Day Prior To The Issue

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CA (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Assessment Year 2016-17 Hirabai & Hormusji Jiwanivakil Model School Trust Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, it has been submitted that the assessee was unaware of the non-compliance during the assessment proceedings as well

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -16(1), Mumbai vs. Eagle Fims, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3204/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 55(2)(a)

nature of ‘capital gain’ and not ‘business income’. Aggrieved, by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We heard the rival submission of Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental Representative) [Ld. CIT-DR, for short] and the Authorised Representative of the assessee

Celestial Vision Limited, Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR DR
Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

total income of Rs. 8,96,43,062/- from royalty taxable @ 10%. Aggrieved with the order of AO/DRP, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR has argued that the AO/DRP have decided the issue which was not raised by the assessee

Sri Rani Shakti Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), New Delhi

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

ITA 3425/DEL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rani Shakti Roller Vs. Jcit (Osd) Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Delhi C/O Sanjeev Anand & Associates, 136, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Pan No.Aabcs5954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153CSection 234ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who vide his order dated 29-03-2025 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.The Ld. A R of the assessee submitted that the order was passed without giving the opportunity of the giving heard to the assessee