← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.46 to 53/Del/2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1.0. “That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition ... then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Shri Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.46 to 53/Del/2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1.0. “That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition ... then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.46 to 53/Del/2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1.0. “That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition ... then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.46 to 53/Del/2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1.0. “That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition ... then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.46 to 53/Del/2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1.0. “That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition ... then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Sudhir Adhana, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA Nos.46 to 53/Del/2025 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: 1.0. “That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition ... then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Jubilant Foodworks Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle, 5(1)(1)., Gautam Buddha Nager

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

ITA 2310/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 924ASection 928Section 92CSection 92F

shopping expenses of INR 11,12,27,375/-. 4. Against this order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds of appeal are taken:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned final order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer

Suresh Kumar Divakar, Sambalpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.43/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Suresh Kumar Divakar, Vs Acit,Circle-1(1), Sambalpur 3Rd Floor, Paradise Chamber, Budharaja, Sambalpur Pan No. :Agupd 1872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao, B, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld Ar That The Appeal Is Against Penalty Levied By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Submission That Against The Quantum Assessment, The Assessee Had Filed An Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Tribunal Vide Its Order Dated 26.06.2023, Passed In Ita No.129/Ctk/2022 In Assessee’S Own Case Has Quashed The Reassessment Proceedings. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Penalty Proceedings Should Also Be Quashed. 3. In Reply Ld. Sr. Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Ld. Ao & Ld.Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena &For Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao, B, Sr.DR

confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that against the quantum assessment, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.06.2023, passed in ITA No.129/CTK/2022 in assessee’s own case has quashed the reassessment proceedings. It was the submission

DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur vs. Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop, Potta Chalakkudy

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 257/COCH/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2013-14 Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop .......... Appellant Potta, Thrissur – 680722. Pan: Aacpi9545G Vs. Dcit .......... Respondent Thrissur. Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sathish John Kanichai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

thereupon as statutorily appropriate.” The said order passed U/s. 263 of the Act was attained finality as the appellant had not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal. The DCIT, Circle 2(1), Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) passed the consequential order to the order ... Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the CIT(A), in deleting the additions, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal vide ITA No. 257/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), in confirming the additions, the assessee is in appeal

Puthoor Antony Jose, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 822/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Puthoor Antony Jose .......... Appellant Puthoor House, Po Valappad, Thrissur-680567, Kerala. Pan: Abspj1167G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-2(1), Thrissur, Kerala. Appellant By: Ms. Telma Raju, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Ms. Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 145A

ACIT 5. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with the affidavit wherein

Vinod Gupta, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhunjhunu

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 259/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251(1)

Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 1110] 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

Baljinder Kaur, Tehsil Moonak, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 802/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahaystay Application No. 20/Chd/2025 In "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Baljinder Kaur, Vs The Ito, W/O Bhagwan Singh, Ward – Sunam, Village – Harigarh, Po-Raidharana, Sangrur. Distt.Sangrur (Punjab). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ennpk8970H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं. Ita No. 802/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Baljinder Kaur, Vs The Ito, W/O Bhagwan Singh, Ward – Sunam, Village – Harigarh, Po-Raidharana, Sangrur. Distt.Sangrur (Punjab). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ennpk8970H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kanav Goyal, Advocate For Shri Paras Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Kanav Goyal, Advocate for Shri Paras Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against SA 20/CHD/2025 and ITA 802/CHD/2025 2 the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) dated 29.10.2024 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee

Jugal Kishore English Wine Shop Village Telka Tehsil Salooni Distt Chamba Himachal Pradesh, Chamba vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Dalhousie Income Tax Office Banikhet Distt Dalhousie, Chamba

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 269/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

balance did not justify the deposits, the addition was upheld. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. AR contended that the assessment order was illegal, void, and in violation of the principles of natural justice

Satyam Rice Mill, Kaithal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Office, Ambala Road, Kaithal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 194/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate andFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 148

Ranjit Kaur, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP PHYSICAL HEARING ORDER The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the 1d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)'] dated 18.12.2024 passed for assessment year

Maa Sharda Kothari Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 93/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Maa Sharda Kothari Foundation Commissioner Of 7, Mahavir Bungalows Vs. Income Tax Nr.Prernatirth Derasar (Exemption) Jodhpur Gam Vejalpur Ahmedabad 380 015. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaatm 7202 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

return of income for A.Y. 2024–25 along with Form 10BB audit report on 29.09.2024, thereby evidencing commencement of charitable activities. The appeal before the Tribunal was ultimately filed with a delay of 319 days, and the delay is sought to be condoned on bona fide and reasonable grounds

Rudraksha Seva Charitable Trust, Valsad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 698/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia with Shri Samir Vora,, ARsFor Respondent: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT. DR

Section 800(50)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

document regarding the genuineness of religious activities of the Trust. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT

Shri Mahavir Jain Mandir, Idar Sabarkantha vs. CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 503/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT. DR

Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

details/explanation and genuineness of the activities of the Trust. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected

Shri Krishna Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 479/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT. DR

Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

details/explanation and genuineness of the activities of the Trust. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected

Shri Krishna Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 478/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Rastogi, CIT. DR

Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

details/explanation and genuineness of the activities of the Trust. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected

Gopal & Sons HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 32(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

knowledge only after getting the certified copy of the same in March, 2025, then the assessee proceeded to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the diamonds were purchased from a bogus company in Surat. It was the submission that the order