← 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

Shri Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Noida vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1457/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 12A

that the activity of the assessee is not the charitable nature. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT( E ) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. None is present for assessee. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant documents before

Shushma Verma, Ghaziabad vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2(2)(3) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1334/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushma Verma Vs. Assessing Officer, 419, Competent House F-14 Ward 2(2)(3) Inner Middle Circle Ghaziabad Connaught Place New Delhi Ghaziabad 110001 Pan No. Aclpv002If (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54F

vide his order dated 20- 12-20223 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the lower authorities passed the exparte orders. He also submitted that the opportunity of the being

Incent Tours Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5600/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 40

vide order dated 15-10-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. The Ld. CIT(A) in the order dated 15.10.2024 has observed as under :- 4.1 Ihave carefully examined the assessment order, the grounds of appeal

Shiven Ceramic LLP, Morbi vs. ITO, National E Assessment, Delhi

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

ITA 392/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.392/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S Shiven Ceramic Llp, बनाम Income Tax Officer National E-Assessment Centre, /Vs. 604/P5, 642/P1, Village Delhi Ghnutu, Lakhdhirpur Nr. Royal Touch Vitrified, Morbi-360 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adifs 8442 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpara, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that in an appeal filed, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income

Ajay Kumar, Hajipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Hajipur

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

ITA 183/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

dated 04.02.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 10.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that the Grounds of Appeal hereto arc without prejudice to one another. I.T.A. No.: 183/PAT/2025 Assessment

Muppalla Padmavathi, Guntur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 396/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 396/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Muppalla Padmavathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 2(1) D.No. 8-188 Topu Kornepadu Guntur Medical College Road Vatticherukuru Mandal Guntur – 522004 Andhra Pradesh Guntur - 522017 [Pan:Foipm1273L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 147Section 148

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 169 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 ... with a delay of 169 days. Therefore, we hereby condone Page No. 2 Muppalla Padmavathi the delay of 169 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 that, assessee

Gummadi Saraswathi, Tenali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 375/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 375/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Gummadi Saraswathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 C/O. Ca Mv Prasad Income Tax Office First Floor D.No. 19-15-47 Opposite Prasad & Co Contractors Opp. Sai Baba Temple D.No. 6-3-871, Snehalata Tenali – 522201 Greenlands Road, Begumpet Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan:Amapg7100K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 94 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 ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 94 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 94 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 that, assessee being

Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 465/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 465/Viz/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Muthavarapu Srinivasa Babu V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2(1) C/O. Ca M.V. Prasad Cr Buildings, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 60-7-13, Ground Floor M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Siddhartha Nagar, 4Th Lane Andhra Pradesh Vijaywada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abwpm3798A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 503 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 ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 503 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 503 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 that assessee

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 532/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been levied upon the Assessee. The fact that the Assessee did not challenge the order passed by the CIT(A) on merits in appeal before the Tribunal on account of low tax impact cannot come in the way of Assessee making the aforesaid submission. ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road, Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 531/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been levied upon the Assessee. The fact that the Assessee did not challenge the order passed by the CIT(A) on merits in appeal before the Tribunal on account of low tax impact cannot come in the way of Assessee making the aforesaid submission. ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 530/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been levied upon the Assessee. The fact that the Assessee did not challenge the order passed by the CIT(A) on merits in appeal before the Tribunal on account of low tax impact cannot come in the way of Assessee making the aforesaid submission. ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road, Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 529/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been levied upon the Assessee. The fact that the Assessee did not challenge the order passed by the CIT(A) on merits in appeal before the Tribunal on account of low tax impact cannot come in the way of Assessee making the aforesaid submission. ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 528/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been levied upon the Assessee. The fact that the Assessee did not challenge the order passed by the CIT(A) on merits in appeal before the Tribunal on account of low tax impact cannot come in the way of Assessee making the aforesaid submission. ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, Mg Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 527/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

been levied upon the Assessee. The fact that the Assessee did not challenge the order passed by the CIT(A) on merits in appeal before the Tribunal on account of low tax impact cannot come in the way of Assessee making the aforesaid submission. ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year

The Ochanthuruth Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO, Non Crop. Ward-2(5), Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 462/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Alan P Dev, advFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr DR
Section 154

relates to assessment year 2016-17. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 530 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, ld counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee was waiting for the order of Page

Just Blossom Foundation, Andhra Pradesh vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 889/HYD/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.889/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2024-25) Just Blossom Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. (Exemption), Hyderabad. Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadtj8267F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. G. Kalyani. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. G. KalyaniFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 80G

No.889/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. We have perused the condonation petition and considered ... substantial charitable activities were being carried out by the trust”. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that, during the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notices to the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 595/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer. 4 ITA.No.595/Hyd./2025 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the assessee has explained the reasons for not responding to the summons

Divyavani Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 564/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.564/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2023-24) M/S. Divyavani Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Hyderabad. (Exemption), Pan:Aadtd2316F Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Divyavani Trust (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 19.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

incorrect section code while filing Form No. 10A. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection order of Ld. CIT(E) , the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had been granted valid registration under section 12AB of the Act since w.e.f

Naresh Kumar, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 547/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 80C

order which is to the following effect : 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the penalty under section 271B of the Act is unsustainable for two reasons i.e. (i) Once the books of account

Bhagini Mandal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 397/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Himangini Sanghi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 80G

delay. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed in limine. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. On the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee