← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4, Surat vs. D Navinchandra Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 154/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.154/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of D Navinchandra Exports बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 4, Surat, Room No.508, Gw 8101, G Block, Bharat Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Diamond Bourse, Bandra Gate, Surat-395 001 Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai–400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp 6855 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.2/Srt/2025 (A/O Ita No.154/Srt/2025/(Ay 2018-19) D Navinchandra Exports Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- / Gw 8101, G Block, Bharat 4, Surat, Room No.508 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Gate, Surat-395 001 Mumbai–400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp 6855 C (Co-Objector) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri K A Vaidyalingan, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal is less than prescribed limit of Rs.60 lakh fixed by CBDT’s in its Circular No.9 of 20124 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable; however, the Revenue is given liberty to move appropriate application

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1283/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Kanak Projects Limited, Vs Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co. 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. Aabck 1255 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 /09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.04.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 26.09.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,11,89,350/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 09.03.2016 & Determined The Total Income At Rs.6,77,12,890/- By, Inter Alia, Making Additions Towards Disallowance Of Capital Expenditure For Rs.52,58,956/-, Rental Income Not Offered To Tax At Rs.8,77,945/-, Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation At Rs.3,75,000/- & Addition Towards Dividend Stripping Income U/S.94(7) Of The Act For Rs.1,636/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sujoy Sen, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

additions made by the Assessing Officer towards returned income. 4. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that although the assessee sought adjournment of hearing by filing letter

M/S. Shree Hari Builders, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4457/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.4457/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) M/S. Shree Hari V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward Builders बिाम 17(3)(1), Mumbai 139 2Nd Floor, Seksaria Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Chambers, N.M. Road, 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Fort, Mumbai 400023 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfs2234F Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, 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 19.09.2025 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 14.05.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 14.05.2025. Aggrieved with this order the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 ITA No 4457/Mum/2025 AY 2013-14 Shree Hari Builders 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that there was a dispute between