← 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 Yash Paul Malhotra, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incme Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

reason to interfere from the findings of the -ssing officer. Hence, this ground of appeal is Dismissed.” 5. Now, the matter is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 6. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition made

Kumari Hemangi Somchand Sumaria Charitable Trust, Vapi vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 286/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethkumari Hemangi Somchand Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Sumaria Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad Plot No.167/168, Sector 1, Saurabh Society, Gidc Vapi, Gujarat – 3963195 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatk9084E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that order in Form No.10AD was passed on 18.09.2023 wherein the application of the Trust in Form ... this, matter of the assessee trust was referred to present learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR), Shri Advocate Hardik Vora, who filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR submitted that there was no malafide intention for causing the delay. He requested that the delay of 460 days

Pratheush Antony Langbein, Mulavana House, Thuruthy P.O, Vazhappally West vs. DCIT Circle Intl.Txn, Tvm, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed

ITA 507/COCH/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratheush Antony Langbein, .......... Appellant Mulavana House, Thuruthy P.O., Vazhappally West, Kottayam, Kerala. [Pan: Avgpl 2952 D] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle International Taxation, Tvm Appellant By: Shri Tony C Kallukalam, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Tony C Kallukalam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 245M

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 27/01/2025 assessing total income at Rs. 22,60,916/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. At the outset, I find

The Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No 1449 Erickavu, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Kumarapuram Service .......... Appellant Cooperative Bank Ltd No. 1449, Erickavu P.O., Karthikappally, Alappuzha, Kerala [Pan: Aaabt 3036 B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu C S, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

prescribed u/s. 139(1) is also mandatory. 3 The Kumarapuram Service Co-op Bank Ltd No.1449 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The issue in present appeal relates to the validity of prima-facie adjustment made by CPC while processing

Shahulhameed Thaha, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 499/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shahulhameed Thaha, .......... Appellant Tc 18/1937, Varuvilakathu Veedu, Thirumala Po, Trivandrum [Pan: Adjpt 6999 H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sreeram Shekar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.81.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Shekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 148

refused to condone the delay by holding that appellant had not shown sufficient reason for delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, I find that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 251 days

Anchalan Mphammed Najeeb, Malappuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tirur

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

ITA 491/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anchalan Mohammed Najeeb, .......... Appellant Prop. Mubarak Agencies, Palakkal Post, Velimukku South, Malappuram. [Pan: Bbypm 2420 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-3, Tirur Appellant By: Shakunth Selvaraj, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shakunth Selvaraj, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, SR-DR
Section 143(3)

confirmed the action of the AO without passing speaking order. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passes by NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of dealing in vegetables as well

Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

dismissed. 5. Since the appeal so filed before the ld. CIT(A) was dismissed aggrieved with that order the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated herein above in para 2. Apropos to the grounds so raised ld. AR of the assessee filed ... Appeal No. 2471 (Guj) of 2009, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: - “Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not address the question of correctness of the CIT (Appeal)’s conclusion that amount of Rs. 70 lakhs represented the genuine export

Arifkhan Munirkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1142/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing the present ITA Nos. 1141&1142/Ahd/2025 Mohammed Salim Noorbhai Shaikh vs. DCIT & others Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3– appeal before the Tribunal has occurred solely due to the assessee being unaware of the outcome of the appeal before the CIT(A). It is further submitted that the delay ... that the explanation offered by the assessee constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay. 5. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. On merits: 6. The brief facts of the case are that for the Assessment Year

Mohammed Salim Noorbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1141/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing the present ITA Nos. 1141&1142/Ahd/2025 Mohammed Salim Noorbhai Shaikh vs. DCIT & others Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3– appeal before the Tribunal has occurred solely due to the assessee being unaware of the outcome of the appeal before the CIT(A). It is further submitted that the delay ... that the explanation offered by the assessee constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay. 5. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. On merits: 6. The brief facts of the case are that for the Assessment Year

Shilpa Electrical Engineers (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 910/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS K. Prabhavati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution”. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. MS. K. Prabhavati, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the assessee had furnished written submissions before the Assessing Officer admitting

Shalini Macha, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 887/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 69

Income Tax Act, 1961 for purchase of properties. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Sri P. Vinod, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sudheer Raavi, Hyderabad

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

ITA 454/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri T Chaitanyakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for not filing the appeal 2 ITA.No.454/Hyd./2025 within the prescribed time limit before ... cause’ in not filing the appeal within the time prescribed time limit and pleaded that, the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may please be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other

Prasad Film Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 113/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. AR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)

average of monthly average investments in mutual funds. 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to ledger account of HDFC Floating Rate Income Fund submitted that

Rajender Reddy Gunna, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1851/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153A

undisclosed commission income. ITA.Nos.1846 to 1851/Hyd./2019 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground nos.2 to 5 of assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs.3 ... sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 26. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 27. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made

Rajender Reddy Gunna, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal, ITA

ITA 1850/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

undisclosed income and undisclosed commission income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground nos.2 to 5 of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs.3 ... sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 26. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 27. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made

Rajender Reddy Gunna, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1849/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

commission income. 5 ITA.Nos.1846 to 1851/Hyd./2019 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground nos.2 to 5 of assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs.3 ... sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 26. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 27. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made

Rajender Reddy Gunna, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

ITA 1848/HYD/2019[2007-8]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

undisclosed income and undisclosed commission income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground nos.2 to 5 of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs.3

Rajender Reddy Gunna, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1847/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 153A

undisclosed commission income. ITA.Nos.1846 to 1851/Hyd./2019 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground nos.2 to 5 of assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs.3 ... sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 26. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 27. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made

Rajender Reddy Gunna, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

ITA 1846/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

undisclosed income and undisclosed commission income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground nos.2 to 5 of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs.3

Highgrowth Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1022/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1022/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Highgrowth Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd…………..……..…………………....Appellant 42E, Cornfield Road, Ground Floor, Ballygunge, Kol-19. [Pan: Aacch0203R] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata..…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Dated 15.03.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 347 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 18.03.13 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.11,281/-.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 68

assessment year 2011–12. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 347 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record