“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

Hrm Interiors, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)Section 44A

outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 174 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a ITA No.295/Hyd/2025 2 petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. In this regard, the Learned Authorised Representative ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 28.01.2025. Upon coming to know of the same, the assessee immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended that there was no deliberate or mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to delay the filing of the appeal

Fedora Sea Foods Private Ltd, Nellore vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 173/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Ashok ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 9 ITA.No.173/Hyd./2025 6. CA, P. Ashok Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in sustaining

Neotiss Private Limited, Medak vs. ACIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 436/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.436/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Neotiss Private Limited Vs. Acit Medak Circle-8(1) Pan : Aaacc8221G Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Siva Prasad SV, DR

Section 142(1)Section 40

assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sashank Dundu submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in rejecting the explanation

R V R Nagesh Legal Heir of Late Vengattarayalu Rajan, Kanchipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward - 22(4), Tambaram

ITA 789/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.789/Chny/2025

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

completely absent in the instant case. Therefore, we also find the imposition of penalty to be unjustified. 31. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) that the assessee raised a new stand before the CIT(A). No such new stand ... reply dated 15.3.2016 in response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which explanation he maintained till he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, on facts, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan is distinguishable. 36. Further

Kalai Vani Rajan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 774/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.774/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kalai Vani Rajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sai Krishna Apartment, Ward I(6), Brindavanan Road, 3Rd Cross, Salem. Fairlands S.O., Salem 636 016 [Pan:Avxpk9339C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute Legal Grounds Raised In Ground No. 4 & 5 & 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 69A

confirmed the same. Having aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) sought for remand report from the Assessing Officer and the said remand report is reproduced

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

Delhi Tribunal in the case of Interglobe Technology Quotient (P) Ltd v ACIT (163 Taxmann.com 542). Aggrieved, the Department is on appeal before the Tribunal. We find that the Coordinate Bench in Assessee's own case in ITA Nos 139,140,117/Chny/2025 for the Assessment years

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gentle Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1470/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1470/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Gentle Commotrade Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, 1, N.S. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata 700 001, West Bengal. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcg7839F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A

CBDT Circular No. 06/2024, dated 17.09.2024. The ld. DR fairly conceded and being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.60,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Appellant- Revenue is liable

Manoharamma Hotel Investments Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1347/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1326/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1346/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1347/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.R.Harshvardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

been noted that in ITA No.1347 there is a delay of 97 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that there was an ongoing prolonged litigation with the creditors and consequently part of its premise was sealed. Further

Manoharamma Hotel Investments Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1346/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.R.Harshvardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Manoharamma Hotel Investmets Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer(Corporate Ward 4(1)0, Chennai

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

ITA 1326/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.R.Harshvardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-3(1) Cbe, Coimbatore vs. Ksk Cold Storage, Mettupalayam

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

ITA 3330/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3330/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Cold Storage, Non Corporate Ward 3(1), 685, Jadayampalayam Village, Coimbatore. Mettupalayam, Coimbatore 641 301. [Pan:Aarfk3964G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By None : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Pers.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Appellant-Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 30.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. Further, The Notice Issued By This Tribunal To The Assessee Returned Unserved With An Endorsement “No Such Person In This Address”. Therefore, The Assessee Is Called Absent & Set Exparte & We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Assessing Officer under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. DR Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT submits that the assessee has not filed return of income

Sunil Ramachandran Nair, Mumbai vs. Circle 23(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4039/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 6B

Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal 3. There is a delay of 462 days in filing the appeal and in this regard the assessee has filed a petition for condonation ... delay along with an affidavit containing the reasons for the delay. The ld AR submitted that assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal earlier on time (ITA No.783 of 2024) and the Tribunal vide order dated 20.09.2024 has dismissed the appeal as not admitted for 3 ITA 4039/Mum/2025 Sunil

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2847/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2847/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 403-404, Delphil B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Iit, Mumbai-400 076 Pan : Aabct3207A ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipul Soni Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul SoniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 80G

ground No 2 and 3 are dismissed." 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which is under consideration in the present matter. 5. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee company submitted that

Shri Digamber Jaiswal Jain Trust, Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

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

ITA 907/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)

registration of the applicant and cancelled the provisional registration of the assessee. Aggrieved the order of the Ld.CIT(E) the assessee filed the appeal before the tribunal. - 3. The Ld. AR submitted that without considering the documents submitted by the assessee the Ld. CIT(E) dismissed the application

Shri Digamber Jain Samaj Kasan(Regd), Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

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

ITA 906/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 12A

registration application and cancelled the provisional registration of the assessee. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(E) the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that without considering the documents submitted by the assessee the Ld. CIT (E) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Balvinder Singh, Karnal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

proper 3 | P a g e verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Jatin, Karnal vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3853/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhita No. 3853/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 69A

hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee. It is also noted that there is a delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After perusing the application for condonation filed by the assessee, I am of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed ... appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records, I note that before the AO assessee submitted a detailed cash flow statement alongwith

Carlsberg India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Gurgaon, Gurugram

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2935/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2013-14 Carlsberg India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Tds Circle 4Th Floor, Rectangel No. 1, Gurugram, Commercial Complex, Haryana D-4, Saket, New Delhi – 17 (Pan: Aajcs8454J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)Section 250

Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. 3. It is noted that there is a delay of 1158 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is the contention of the Assessee that against the order passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) dated 31.03.2021, assessee preferred an appeal ... view of the factual matrix, I am fully satisfied that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in dispute and remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, New Delhi vs. ACIT CC-16, New Delhi

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

ITA 2150/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 34

before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the Page | 2 ITA No.2150/Del/2025 assessee thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds of appeal are raised:- 1. “The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 26, Delhi has erred in confirming

Amar Singh vs. ITO Ward-2, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1229/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal before the NFAC/CIT(A), who vide his order dated 10-02-2025 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR has submitted that the penalty order passed by AO is bad in law because the addition made by Assessing officer