“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

Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham, Eluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 160/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham V. Income Tax Officer 20B-7-21/1 Income Tax Office C/O. Ayyappa Medicals Eluru, West Godavari Andhra Pradesh Gandhi Nagar, Eluru West Godavari District – 534002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aidpg1046K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... delay of 19 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 19 Page No. 2 Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee’s society

Satya Tulasi Donepalli, Korukonda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 3, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Kambala Tank

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 13/VIZ/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.13/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2011-12) Vs. Satya Tulasi Donepalli Income Tax Officer-Ward-3 Rajahmundry Sri Parvathi Parameswara Oil Agency Main Road, Korukonda East Godavari District – 533289 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Avtpd0908N] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 264

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 155 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... appeal with delay of 155 days. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly objected for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Tiruvallur

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1663/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1663/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Income Tax, 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ambattur Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai. Ambattur, Thiruvallur 600 058. [Pan:Aaaca4127D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 67 Days. The Appellant-Revenue Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Revenue Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Jain, CA

Section 14A

made under section 14A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 I.T.A. No.1663/Chny/25 5. The ld. DR Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the disallowance under section

Priyanka Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 836/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 834 To 836/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri M. M. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT DR) & Shri

Section 250Section 69C

tune of Rs. 28,52,41,896/-. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissions at length. The written submissions filed by the Ld. AR as well ... been added by the Ld. AO on protective basis, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the assessee’s appeal. 18. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the deletion of addition on account of donation made by the assessee to three different entities. Brief facts in this regard

Priynaka Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 835/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M. M. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT DR) & Shri

Section 250Section 69C

Priyanka Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 834/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M. M. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT DR) & Shri

Section 250Section 69C

Kusum Jagannath Amin, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 27(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4521/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

submissions of the assessee, restricted disallowance at Rs.12,97,795/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that in Ground No.1 the assessee is challenging validating of the assessment order and the notice issued under section

Shri Jayant B Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commssioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4480/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Smt. Renu Jauhri () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shri Jayant B. Shah, The Asst. Cit Circle 2(1)(1), C/O. G.P. Mehta & Co. Cas, 807, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaops 8642 L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. G P Mehta

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 50Section 50C

order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the the rival submissions and perused the relevant rival submissions and perused

The National Sodality Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanthi PatelFor Respondent: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat (SR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31.03.2025. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the audit report in Form 10 BB was filed with the return and therefore

Horizontal Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4005/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Tribunal & Therefore, The Delay Of 295 Days Is Condoned.

Section 143(3)

view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances mentioned, we find that there was a reasonable cause in belatedly filing the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, the delay of 295 days is condoned. 4. At the outset, it has been pointed out by the assessee as well

Horizontal Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3984/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal & Therefore, The Delay Of 295 Days Is Condoned.

Section 143(3)

Horizontal Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3963/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal & Therefore, The Delay Of 295 Days Is Condoned.

Section 143(3)

Pradeep Kumar Jhamumal Jethani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

ITA 3910/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrimr. Pradeep Kumar V/S. Commissioner Of Jhamulal Jethani Income Tax (Appeals) 203, Quantum Park Chs National Faceless Ltd, Appeal Centre (Nfac), Union Park, Khar Gulab Delhi Nagar, Dcit Circle 23(1) Opp. Olive Restaurant, Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Khar (West), Pavel, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapj8162G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. M SubramnaimFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (SR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

support of the purchases which were held to be bogus. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Pradeep Kumar Jhamumal Jethani 4. We have heard the rival submission and perused ... sales in the books of accounts. On appeal, the CIT(A) has restricted the addition considering the profit element @25% and on further appeal the Honble Tribunal has restricted the addition to the extent of 9%. We are of the opinion, that where the addition is sustained on the estimated

M/S. Innovators Facade Systems Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, -1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3822/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrim/S Innovators Facade V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Systems Limited Mumbai, बनाम Income Tax, Thane – 1, B-Wing, B-65/204 Jaydeep Chsl, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road Shanti Nagar Mira Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial (East), Thane – 401 107, Estate, Thane(West), Thane – Maharashtra 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci7326Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Govind Javeri & Ms. Kirti ChoubeyFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

under section 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of PCIT, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available before us. At the outset, Ld.AR has pointed out that appeal against the original assessment

Jinseva Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 3532/MUM/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

For Appellant: Mr. Margav ShuklaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 8

seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.3531 & 3532/MUM/2025 Jinseva Foundation 5.1 Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the issue relating to mention of words “outside India

Jinseva Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appe

ITA 3531/MUM/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla

Section 11Section 12A

Exemptions), the Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), the assessee has preferred an appeal assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos. 3531 & 4 3532/MUM/2025 Jinseva Foundation Jinseva Foundation 5.1 Before us, the Ld. AR has submitt Before

DCIT- CC-6 (1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Priyanka Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1495/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri M. M. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT DR) & Shri

Section 250Section 69C

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Priyanka Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1494/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M. M. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT DR) & Shri

Section 250Section 69C

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Priyanka Communications India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1493/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M. M. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT DR) & Shri

Section 250Section 69C

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir, 20(1), Mumbai vs. Amit Sampathraj Shah, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5380/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10Section 143Section 148

quashed. The appeal on this ground is thus allowed.” 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenues and appeal before the tribunal. 4. At the outset the Ld.AR filed application under Rule 27 of IT rules 1963 by raising following legal issue: On the facts and circumstances