← 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

Parmal Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward No 3, Panchkula

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 432/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 432/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Parmal Singh, Vs The Ito, C/O M.K. Aggarwal & Associates, Ward No. 3, Sco 1, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Dlzps7712A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rishab Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 68

Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 21.09.2023 passed for assessment year

Dhanpati Wife of Sh. Gaje Singh Defence Colony, Gali No.3 District Kathal, Haryana vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee, on merit, is allowed

ITA 866/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

void ab-initio and relied upon the certain case laws. 8. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 9. On merits, it was vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the land, which was registered

Debabrata Chakraborty, Medinipur West vs. ITO, Ward -38(1), Midnapur

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

ITA 1020/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That your petitioner is a law-abiding Indian Citizen. 2. That your petitioner owns a trading business ... assessee on the ground of non-compliance. Further, aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. In the course of appeal, the assessee sought adjournment but the same was rejected as there did not appear to be a justified

Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 796/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.796/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ankit Metal & Power Ltd………..……..…………………....Appellant 35, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kol-12. [Pan: Aaeca5230B] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata…..…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 05, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Passed By The Cit(A)-21, Kolkata [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Subjected To Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To Information Gathered During Search & Seizure Operations Conducted Under Section 132 Of The Act In The Case Of One Sanjeev Kejriwal & His Group Entities. During The Course Of Such Proceedings, It Was Revealed That Mr. Kejriwal Was Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries Through Various Concerns Including: M/S Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., M/S Arvind Trading Company & M/S Shri Krishna Trading Company. In His Sworn Statement, Mr. Kejriwal Admitted That These Entities Were Non-

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

order of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. No.796/Kol/2024 Ankit Metal & Power Ltd 4. Dissatisfied with the above order the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal, raising multiple grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings and merits of addition. At the time of hearing, despite issuance of notices ... cooperate with the proceedings without fail. We also observe that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition, which we have considered. In the interest of justice, the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal

Inter Globe Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 2096/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

dated 21.04.2021. I.T.A. No.: 2096/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Inter Globe Finance Limited. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order dated April 21, 2021 is bad in law and in gross violation of the principles of natural

Sagothara Vazhvu Pani, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward, 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 1582/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1582/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Arun Prasad, Addl.CIT
Section 250

information and submit to its authorized representative for filing of appeal. Therefore, there was a delay of 303 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the same, we condone the delay in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only

Sampathu Gowrilaksmi, Pondicherry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puducherry

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

ITA 1580/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1580/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late Sampathu Gowrilakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Legal Heir Shri S. Vs. Ward 1, Singaravelu, Pondicherry. No.120 Gowri Silks, Nehru Street, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pan: Aadpg 1998G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Arun Prasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Arun Prasad, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 250

before the Tribunal on 30.05.2025 with delay. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset

Pawan Chauhan, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Noida

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2616/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

assessee in assessment order as ‘A-5, Sector-3, Noida’. Even, the CIT(A) has mentioned the same address, however, while filing appeal before the Tribunal in Form No. 36, the assessee has mentioned a different address for sending the notices i.e. ‘78, Shivaji Road, Meghdoot Crossing, Meerut’. Thus, from

Sapna Sameer, Patna vs. ITO, 2(2), Chapra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 436/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

Sapna Sameer. assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, dated 12.04.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “a. The AO failed to appreciate that the Books of Account of the assessee were duly Audited ... notices issued for hearing of the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted before us by the Ld. AR that

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 345/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the additions. 6. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 20/12/2024 in ITA No. 508/Coch/2024, deleted the additions by holding that no addition can be made merely ... subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A), cannot be made subject matter of revision. It was further submitted that on further appeal before this Tribunal, the additions made by the AO were deleted. 9. However, learned PCIT on due consideration of the explanation of the assessee and considering

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the additions. 6. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 20/12/2024 in ITA No. 508/Coch/2024, deleted the additions by holding that no addition can be made merely ... subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A), cannot be made subject matter of revision. It was further submitted that on further appeal before this Tribunal, the additions made by the AO were deleted. 9. However, learned PCIT on due consideration of the explanation of the assessee and considering

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the additions. 6. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 20/12/2024 in ITA No. 508/Coch/2024, deleted the additions by holding that no addition can be made merely ... subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A), cannot be made subject matter of revision. It was further submitted that on further appeal before this Tribunal, the additions made by the AO were deleted. 9. However, learned PCIT on due consideration of the explanation of the assessee and considering

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 342/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the additions. 6. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 20/12/2024 in ITA No. 508/Coch/2024, deleted the additions by holding that no addition can be made merely ... subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A), cannot be made subject matter of revision. It was further submitted that on further appeal before this Tribunal, the additions made by the AO were deleted. 9. However, learned PCIT on due consideration of the explanation of the assessee and considering

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 341/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the additions. 6. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 20/12/2024 in ITA No. 508/Coch/2024, deleted the additions by holding that no addition can be made merely ... subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A), cannot be made subject matter of revision. It was further submitted that on further appeal before this Tribunal, the additions made by the AO were deleted. 9. However, learned PCIT on due consideration of the explanation of the assessee and considering

Keeran Muhammed Basheer, Kannur vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 340/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the additions. 6. On further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 20/12/2024 in ITA No. 508/Coch/2024, deleted the additions by holding that no addition can be made merely ... subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A), cannot be made subject matter of revision. It was further submitted that on further appeal before this Tribunal, the additions made by the AO were deleted. 9. However, learned PCIT on due consideration of the explanation of the assessee and considering

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is also allowed for A

ITA 1038/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

verifying the issue of Leave Encashment. 4. Being aggrieved by the order under Section 263 of the Act, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR submitted hat the assessee had filed sufficient evidences and explained during the course of assessment proceedings in support

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is also allowed for A

ITA 1037/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

verifying the issue of Leave Encashment. 4. Being aggrieved by the order under Section 263 of the Act, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR submitted hat the assessee had filed sufficient evidences and explained during the course of assessment proceedings in support

Lovely Das, Dum Dum vs. Addl/JCIT, Nashik

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 294/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 291/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT ... vide order dated 02.01.2025, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that even though the income

Lovely Das, Dum Dum vs. Addl/JCIT, Nashik

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 293/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 291/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT ... vide order dated 02.01.2025, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that even though the income

Lovely Das, Dum Dum vs. Addl/JCIT, Nashik

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 292/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 291/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT ... vide order dated 02.01.2025, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that even though the income