← 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

Bihar State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Patna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 330/PAT/2024; AY 2012-13: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without ... paper book along with the necessary annexures and the additional ground raised were not part of the original grounds of appeal before the Tribunal nor these documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Since they have been filed for the first time and were not considered

Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, Patna vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Patna, Patna

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 330/PAT/2024; AY 2012-13: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without ... paper book along with the necessary annexures and the additional ground raised were not part of the original grounds of appeal before the Tribunal nor these documents were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Since they have been filed for the first time and were not considered

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Dehradun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147

assessee. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the issues in dispute in the present appeal before the Tribunal, should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity

Daljeet Singh, Jind vs. Assessing Officer, Jind

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/CHANDI/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 847/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Daljeet Singh, The Ao, बनाम House No. 469/24, Ward 15, Jind Employees Colony Vs. Rohtak Road Bye Pass, Jind 126102 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bmips1734G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

time of hearing. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a massive delay of 3784 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 03.8.2024 for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under

Nanha S/O Sh. Dewa Singh, Jind vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jind

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 1198/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1198/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nanha S/O Sh. Dewa Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Navdeep Monga,Advocate, Ward-2, House No. 38, Ist Floor, Jind Vs. Bank Colony, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh 160101 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Apupn5818A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing )

For Appellant: Sh.Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 234A

time of hearing. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 40 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application dt. 26.12.2024 on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The application

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Giriraj Enterprises, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

PARTLY ALLOWED.” 11. Aggrieved with such part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.427/PUN/2025 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

PARTLY ALLOWED.” 11. Aggrieved with such part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.427/PUN/2025 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy

Aum Chaitanya P Pu Shree Rameshwaray Dham, Pune vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2504/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The Id CIT Exemption erred in law and on facts in rejection of application for registration

Aum Chaitanya P Pu Shree Rameshwary Dham, Pune vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2503/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The Id CIT Exemption erred in law and on facts in rejection of application for registration

Isdec India Private Limited, Milkhiram Market, Sakchi, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Square

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

ITA 730/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250

dated 27.03.2025, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 21.05.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 730/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 ISDEC India Private Limited. “1. Ground 1. That

Macro Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T.(Central) - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 2484/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. George Mathan & Sh. Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

been passed against the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act, dated 22.09.2021. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. That the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without ... aside to be passed afresh after making proper enquiries. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that

ITO, Kolkata vs. Blackberry Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1234/KOL/2023[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 68

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC ... however confirmed and the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ground no. 1 is regarding the absence of identity of the creditors, genuineness and creditworthiness of the entire transactions. In Ground

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Shri Shivashakti Souharda Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamit

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 517/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Murali Mohan M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Rs.99,20,508/-. 6. Aggrived from the above Order of the CIT(A), both the parties have filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.452, 517/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 13 7. During the appellate proceedings, the learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he has filed written

Shri Shivashakti Souharda Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Melligeri Towers, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bagalkot, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Murali Mohan M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Rs.99,20,508/-. 6. Aggrived from the above Order of the CIT(A), both the parties have filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.452, 517/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 13 7. During the appellate proceedings, the learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he has filed written

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S Mrk Gold LLP, Bangalore

ITA 1026/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar J Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

assessee on merits, after relying on various judgments. 5. Aggrieved from the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned DR relied on the Order of the AO and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the appeal

Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 1488/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kit(Tp)A No.1488/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmaye Rajkumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 144C(13)Section 92C

assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) and he dismissed appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and she has filed written synopsis for inclusion and exclusion of comparable

Pramod Laxman Bhor, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2943/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Praksh Kantpramod Laxman Bhor Vs The Income-Tax Officer, Ward Plot No.224, 1St Floor, Room 28(2)(4), Room No.309, 3Rd Floor 102, Sector-14, New Kukshet Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Gav, Nerul West, Navi Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 0765 Mumbai-400 703 Pan : Akbpa1278K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhte, CA (vituallyFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe – (SR. DR.)

assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the very outset we noticed that there was a delay of 453 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assesse filed a petition seeking condonation of 2 ITA 2943/Mum/2025 Pramod Laxan Bhor delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which is supported

Omwati, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/DDN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 54B

allowability of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Aggrieved with the said revision order of Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. In the meantime, the AO proceeded with the directions given by the ld. PCIT in the order passed

Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani, Jamnagar vs. The Assessement Unit NFAC Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 141/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani बनाम The Assessment Unit, National Steet No.2, Near Navnala, Faceless Assessment Center, Income /Vs. Gulabnagar Tari Hanuman Tax Department Road, Jamnagar-361007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ascpv 1519 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 18.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “Reopening U/S 148A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) 1. The Learned The National Faceless Appeal Centre [“The Cit(A)”] & The Assessment Unti, Income Tax Department (“The Ao”) Erred In Fact & In Law In Initiating Proceedings U/S 148 Of The Act Without Issuing Notice U/S Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

mail address. As soon as assessee obtained copy of order from his previous tax consultant, then after assessee took appropriate steps to file appeal before the Tribunal and this process has resulted into delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Since the order of Ld.CIT(A) was not delivered to assessee

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur vs. Dc/Ac Circle-2, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 186/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.186/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank……….....…..…………………....Appellant Sharma Complex, Ramna Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aaaju0238J] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.47,24,77,982. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Manual Selection Criteria During The Financial Year 2017-18. Accordingly, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Made Certain Submissions. However, The Assessing Officer Made The Following Additions/Disallowances: Rs.16,84,20,016: Provision For Npa.

Section 36(1)(va)

passed an ex parte order, upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is a Gramin Bank located in Bihar and due to the inaction and negligence of the earlier counsel representing