← 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

The Muthalamada East Ksheera Vyavasaya Coop Society Ltd Nop4D, Muthalamada vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Aaykar Bhavan

ITA 570/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

For Appellant: Shri Rajendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

merit and therefore, dismissed the ground raised by the Assessee on merits as well. 5. Being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee did not receive the copy of Assessment Order and therefore

Anil Mittal, Huda Ellenabad vs. Income Tax Office, Sirsa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 94/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Anil Mittal, The Ito, House No. 139, Huda, Vs Sirsa. Ellenabad. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Apdpm5895F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rittun Sahuwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rittun Sahuwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 30.01.2020 passed for assessment year

Savita Dalal, Jind vs. ITO, Jind

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 325/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Savita Dalal, The Ito, 1195, Urban Estate, Vs Jind. Jind. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagpd5813N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhan Raj Goel, Advocate & Shri Shankar Goel, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhan Raj Goel, Advocate and Shri Shankar Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 148

Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 07.01.2025 passed for assessment year

Kwality Overseas Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

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

ITA 553/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 553/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 Kwality Overseas Private Limited 863, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana बनाम The DCIT Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AABCK6381J अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/08/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69Section 69A

assessee for non prosecution despite various notices issued to him. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the AO passed the order under section

Narendra Sharadchandra Khandekar, Usa vs. DCIT, Cir-22, Pune

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

ITA 1188/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Addl. / JCIT(A) due to non-prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that although in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Lata Pralhad Deshmukh, Nashik vs. CIT(A), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2035/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(1)Section 154

Result:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted

United Steel Allied Industries Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, M Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad, SV, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 274

under section 270A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee company is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA M Poorna Chander Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred both

Nagabhushanam & Co, Hyderbad vs. ITO., Ward 6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 779/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.779/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Nagabhushanam & Co., Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aadfn6796P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Nagabhushanam & Co. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad-1 (“Ld. Pcit”), Dated 04.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

frame a fresh assessment as per law. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had obtained a works contract from M/s Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (“RVCPL”) for Rs.9

Ravindar Reddy Miryala, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 761/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte order. Before

Jogindra Kotapalli, Rajahmundry vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 688/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.688/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Jogindra Kotapalli, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Tirupati. Rajahmundry. Pan:Alnpk2330F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Jogindra Kotapalli (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 21.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, SR-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. This appeal was fixed before us on 09.07.2025 and 18.08.2025, when the assessee filed adjournment petitions. However, on those days, no representation was there on behalf

Sunil Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 616/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Rajesh VaishnavFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, Rajesh Vaisnav, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the statement recorded during the course of proceedings u/sec.132/132A

Nimmatoori Sulochana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

rejecting all the grounds raised by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, right from the very beginning the assessee explained the source

Nimmatoori Yashoda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 602/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

rejecting all the grounds raised by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, right from the very beginning the assessee explained the source

People Media Factory LLP, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle- 1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 298/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, A SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 250Section 68

prosecution. 6 ITA.No.298/Hyd./2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee firm is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. CA, A. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, before the Assessing Officer the assessee firm has furnished relevant information. But, the Assessing

Mb Akkaiah and Company, Miryalguda vs. ACIT., Circle-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1133/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal of the assessee firm for non- prosecution. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any petition seeking for adjournment. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal

Kiran Reddy Visireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1131/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: MS U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, C. Maheshwar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer has passed the ex-parte assessment order without

Sudhakar Akutota, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1068/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1068/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Sudhakar Akutota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Abapa0044M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sudhakar Akutota (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 296 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorised

For Appellant: Shri A. V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 296 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorised ITA No.1068/Hyd/2025 2 Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted ... consequently, the appeal was dismissed ex parte. 10. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not file submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) due to reasons already explained in the affidavit filed

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 154

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 356 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay dated 17.10.2024. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the delay was neither intentional ... Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) on 03.11.2023. Given the prolonged resolution process before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee subsequently filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 22.12.2023 with a request for condonation of delay. The appeal was initially returned by the Registry due to technical defects, including lack

M P Birla Foundation Educational Society, Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 989/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 18.03.2020. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Addl./JCIT (Appeals) erred in not setting aside Intimation ... Foundation Educational Society. 5. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that though the report

Milan Mallick, Bagda vs. ITO, Ward 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1170/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

filed any explanation in support of the relief claimed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 1170/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Milan Mallick 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been