← 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

Ramashis Ramkeval Pandey, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1228/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1228/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Ramashis Ramkeval Pandey Income Tax Officer, Ward-7, Vapi, बनाम/ Flat No.104, Shivaji Park, Fortune Square-Ii, Daman Road, Vs. Near St. Xaviers School, Chala, Vapi-396 191 Chhrwada- 396 191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Asbpp 4263 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By None राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250

Supreme Court and High Courts. 4. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the appellant has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the appeallant. We have heard Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and the materials available before. We find that appellant

Ponipireddy Rajyalakshmi, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

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

ITA 362/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

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

dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

Narasimha Rao Jammigumpula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Narasaraopet

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 69A

confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following revised grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

Moturu Chandra Sekhara Rao, Usa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 474/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of The Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Relevant Contents Are Scanned & Pasted Herein Below:

Section 147Section 249(4)

Asst. Year 2015-16. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 47 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

Meera, Jaaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Jaaipur, Jaipur

ITA 590/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 106 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application explaining the cause of such delay which is supported by an Affidavit. 3 Meera, Jaipur 4. We have

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 251 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application explaining the cause of such delay which is supported by an Affidavit. 4. We have gone through ... 270A instead of 271(1)(c). 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding of the ld. PCIT the assessee filed the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated herein above. To support the grounds so raised the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed

Mahatma Gandhi Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt Udgir, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1 -Latur, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.670 & 671/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mahatma Gandhi Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt Udgir, Bidar Road, Near Mahatma Gandhi Udyan, Udgir, Latur-413517 Pan: Aabam7649H अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ito, Ward-1, Latur Vs. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Miss Sailee Gujarathi (Virtual) Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 02-07-2025 09-09-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 10.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction. The action of AO is upheld and the grounds of appeal nos.1 to 5 &7 are dismissed.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred

Mr. Vijaykumar Pramanad Sethi, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 464/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

upheld the order of the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was not intentional. He submitted that given

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

observing as under: ITA Nos.1241 to 1243/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the order on 24.08.2021 and the due date for filing ... submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, such delay

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

observing as under: ITA Nos.1241 to 1243/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the order on 24.08.2021 and the due date for filing ... submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, such delay

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

observing as under: ITA Nos.1241 to 1243/PUN/2025 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the order on 24.08.2021 and the due date for filing ... submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, such delay

Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Solapur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

upheld the ground is noted as dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied with the above order(s) of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No 2392/PUN/2024 – Appeal under section 143(3) order “On the facts and in circumstances

Kothari Agritech Private Limited, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

upheld the ground is noted as dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied with the above order(s) of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No 2392/PUN/2024 – Appeal under section 143(3) order “On the facts and in circumstances

Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, Puri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 62(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 21/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

above, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It is was submitted before us that the assessee had filed

Amiya Shankar Ghar, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1443/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-2015 Amiya Shankar Ghar, Ward Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.08, Dewan Bazar, No.3(1), Bankura, Po: Sonamukhi, Po: Sonamukhi, Kendudihi, Dist: Bankura. Dist: Bankura. Pan/Gir No.Acypg 7746 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sen, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sankar Naskar, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sen, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Naskar, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

received the notice for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by hand, the matter was enquired about the status of filing of appeal before the tribunal . Only then it came to be informed by the advocate that by mistake the appeal order was kept somewhere and not traceable. Therefore

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata vs. Equipment Barter Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1560/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 68

appeal of the appellant was partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submitted as per the grounds of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Murugesan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1567/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

deleted. The grounds of appeal are partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the FAA. 6. The Ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the AO and the FAA. 7. I have

Family Physicians Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward, Bangalore

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

ITA 946/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Family Physicians Association, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), #202-3 Mahesh Clinic, Ward, R T Street, B V K Iyengar Road Cross, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 053, Karnataka. Pan :Aaatf 1083 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nagesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Nagesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

there is no reasonable cause and he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that learned CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal before him. He has reiterated the grounds of appeal

DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4276/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 37(1)Section 92C

ITAT in the case of the assessee in earlier years. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced as above. 3. The ground Nos.1 to 3 of the appeal relate to discount cost

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 87/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Airport V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Development Company बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Room No. 608, Aayakar 8, World Trade Centre, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Road, Mumbai – 400020, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), बनाम Development Company Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Limited, 8, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Centre, Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 Cuffe Parade, Colaba S.O. 020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 57

expenditure which is debited to Profit and Loss account as expenditure u/s 57 against income from other sources. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT heard the case on 16.12.2015 and the matter was set aside to the file of ld. Assessing Officer ... interest on borrowings to the tune of Rs. 8,87,83,570/- against interest income on fixed deposits. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In the back drop of the above stated facts and contesting on the additional ground no.4 referred above, claim of the assessee