← 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

Sh. Rakesh Soni, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1292/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69

account. Accordingly, he confirmed the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee, in addition to his verbal arguments, also submitted

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Rajesh Gupta Prop. M/S Shri Balaji Trading Co., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 459/CHANDI/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 144Section 251(1)

Date of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 27.01.2025 passed for assessment year

Adarsh Constructions & Engg, Sangrur vs. ITO, Sangrur

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

ITA 130/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 130/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Adarsh Constructions & Engg., The Ito, # 6, Mann Colony, Sangrur, Vs Sangrur. Punjab. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aanfa8995M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vibhore Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Vibhore Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Date of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 23.12.2024 passed for assessment year

Ruia Marketing Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1207/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ruia Marketing Ltd…………………………………….……….……….……Appellant 9, Ezra Street, Top Floor, Room No.47, Kol- 1.. [Pan: Aaccr1621D] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

knowledge only after getting the certified copy of the same in March, 2025, then the assessee proceeded to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the diamonds were purchased from a bogus company in Surat. It was the submission that the order

Sumatinath Builders, Nallasopara vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Thane

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

ITA 4685/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantms Suchitra Kamblesumatinath Builders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Shop No.1, Of Income Tax, Jay Vijay Nagari-1, Circle-4, Virar Link Road, Thane. Nallasopara, Vasai-Virar Dist. Thane-401209. Maharashtra. [Pan :Abdfs6440 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 68

assessee firm was in the receipt of demand recovery notice on 05.06.2025. There is a delay of 601 days in filling the appeal before the Tribunal. But after going through the details of the affidavit, it appears that the delay is not deliberate on the part of the assessee

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is allowed

ITA 4375/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Johnson & Johnson Income-Tax, Central Circle – Private Limited Vs. 3(4), Mumbai 501, Arena Space Off Jvlr, Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Jogeshwari East, S.O. Mumbai Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 40020 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj0866E (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nikhil Tiwari/Shri Pranay Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 16.04.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14 & Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil Tiwari/Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

violation of the provisions of Section 80IC of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and vide order dated 17.07.2019, the revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed by the coordinate bench (ITA No. 4947/MUM/2018). Meanwhile, the Assessing

H & M Housing Finance and Leasing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

after allowing depreciation commencing from the said year.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In light of aforesaid factual matrix, it was submitted by the ld AR that in so far as the head of income

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazibad, Ghaziabad vs. Imran, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6173/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 139oSection 144Section 153CSection 251Section 68

make a fresh assessment as per provisions of law. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before the tribunal. - 4. Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that the, Ld. Assessing completed the assessment ex-parte because the assessee did not furnished

Ujjawal Sawera Samiti, Meerut vs. ITO Ward (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 5606/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20 Ujjawal Sawera Samiti, Vs. Ito Meerut -250001 Ward (Exemption) Pan No. Aaatu3244J Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 144B

NFAC who vide his order dated 19.02.2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR of the assesse submitted that the registration certificate dated 28-02-2011 granted u/s 12AA of the Act was never cancelled

Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 40/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 153C

vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 has upheld the orders of Ld. AO, thus, aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds are taken by the assessee: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 39/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 153C

vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 has upheld the orders of Ld. AO, thus, aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds are taken by the assessee: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 38/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 153C

vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 has upheld the orders of Ld. AO, thus, aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds are taken by the assessee: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Amit Maheswari, Bharatpur vs. ITO Ward 4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 222/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Goyal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 154

disposal of the rectification application. Since, no action was taken for the same, the assessee choose to file an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2460 days. I find that the reasons adduced in the condonation petition by the assessee cannot be accepted as no proper explanation

Shri Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani, Village Jetpur, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 435/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 435/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani Asanani Ito, Nfac, Delhi Prop. Jay Jalaram Enterprise, M. G. , M. G. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 Pan : Aecpa2955G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. D. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld
Section 147Section 148

before the Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, I note that Therefore, I note that because of mistake of the advocate of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee

Baldevbhai Vithhakbhai Patel, Pardi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 582/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am. Smatpt Sitet Bta No.582/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that the notices by the CIT(A) were sent on wrong e-mail id on ‘agriculturepardi@gmail.com’ instead of ‘rrassociatesvapi@gmail.com ... upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (Id. AR) of the assessee submitted that assessee could not represent his case before the CIT(A) and the order

Suri Babu Krovvidi, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada

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

ITA 409/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Suri Babu Krovvidi Vs. Income Tax Officer East Godavari Distt. Vijayawada Pan:Aejpk1777P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Naresh Gowlikar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 56 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay To Explain The Cause Of The Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Layman & The Assessee Was Not Having Any Knowledge About The Tax & Procedural Requirement Of Filing The Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Cit (A). He Has Further

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Gowlikar, CA (hybrid)For Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 17

conduct is very casual and negligent as he has filed belated the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and again a belated appeal before this Tribunal. He has objected to the condonation of the delay. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material available ... ground of delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has also explained the cause of the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay

Anil Kumar Co Ms Bharat Box Factory Ltd. Beantpura, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana vs. Jatin Abhi, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 811/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: him.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

reopening of the case u/s 148 and also on merits. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing he Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that all the grounds of appeals as raised before

Nandigram Krashi Awam Gram Vikas Sanstha Suga, Nanded vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1762/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

assessment proceedings, the assessee had failed to explain, justify and substantiate its claim with any documentary evidence. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition

Mohammed Gouse Moinuddin, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 900/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment year 2014-2015. 2 ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay contending, inter alia, that, the Income Tax Practitioner who is looking after ... demand notice received by the assessee, the tax practitioner became incommunicado and, therefore, there is a delay in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal, which is neither willful nor for want of any undue benefit. He, therefore, pleaded that, the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before

Narayansinthy Gajendra Patro, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Ahmedabad, relating to the assessment year 2020-2021. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 326 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay to the effect 2 ITA.No.698/Hyd./2025 that, he had appeal before ... consulted a new Tax Consultant, it is informed that the learned CIT(A) has passed an unfavourable order and advised to file appeal before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the assessee has taken immediate steps for filing of the appeal and the accordingly the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal