← 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

Kadharmeera Amjath, Madurai vs. DCIT Ncc1, Madurai

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri A.G. SathyanarayananFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

confirmed the addition made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax authorities. 6. The Ld.DR supported the orders of the AO and the FAA. 7. I have

Teknoture Info Services Private Limited, Coibatore vs. DCIT Corp Circle I, Coimbatore

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

ITA 747/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Abhishek, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

medical issue of the accountant. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. I also find that the assessee has got a prima facie case on merits. For all these reasons, I condone the delay in filing ... grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that in the prior period expenses which has been deducted in the computation of assessee’s book profit u/s.115JB

K.R.Pulp and Papers Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

ITA 4456/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92C

rejected the objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld.DRP has allowed part relief to the assessee against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-19, New Delhi

K R Pulp and Papers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-19, Delhi

ITA 755/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 801ASection 801A(4)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

rejected the objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld.DRP has allowed part relief to the assessee against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-19, New Delhi

Virender Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2689/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153C

vide order dated 04-10-2022 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR has mentioned that no DIN has been mentioned in the assessment order. The Ld. AR has placed the reliance on the decision

Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1643/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, Vs Acit, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East Of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaept8805A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca, Harish, Ca, Neetu Jain, Ca & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 69A

vide order dated 15.09.2014 allowed the substantial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Co-ordinate “G” Bench of the Tribunal, New Delhi vide order dated 31.10.2018 in ITA No.6185/Del/2014 partly allowed the appeal

Green Infra Wind Farm Asset Ltd., Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 930/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Green Infra Wind Farm Asset Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.8, Circle-10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaecg4080H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ca & Shri Biren Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 21.01.2020, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of amortization

Sanjay Kumar Behera, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Cuttack

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

ITA 331/CTK/2025[2017-8]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kr. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR

from 1.1.2023 to 30.4.25, therefore, he missed the last date of filing of appeal. After getting relief from my illness, I filed the appeal before the Tribunal and the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. He prayed that the delay be condoned. 3. After hearing the parties

Gayatri Steel, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 295/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Syed Bakiullah, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 69A

Managing Partner, necessary steps could not be taken to file P a g e 1 | 4 Assessment Year :2017-18 the appeal before the Tribunal. However, on 09/05/2025 after getting the relief from the illness, the Managing Partner joined the duty and took step to file the appeal in ITAT

Batakrushna Pratihari Through Beneficiary Gita Partihari, Puri vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Ward, Puri

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

ITA 283/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : Assessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: None (written submission)
Section 154

filed condonation petition stating that on receipt of appellate order and finding certain mistakes as apparent on its face, instead of preferring appeal before the Tribunal, moved ld CIT(A) through petition u/s.154 of the act after a period of 19 days from the date of receipt of original order ... However, the petition u/s.154 of the Act was rejected by the ld CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which has resulted delay of 94 days. It was prayed that due to reason, there was delay in filing the appeal and the delay be condoned. 3. After

Shafi Ahamed, Kanpur vs. ACIT, CC-1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Shafi Ahamed V. The Acit 133/194 ‘O’ Block Central Circle 1 Sabzi Mandi Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Alhpa0988P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)

During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there is a delay of 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay duly supported by an Affidavit, which was received by the Registry ... stating therein that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was handed over to the local counsel’s office for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Office Assistant kept the said order in a folder and the said folder got mixed up with other folders/files mistakenly

Udaan Sewa Samiti, Kanpur Nagar vs. CPC Banglore, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Udaan Seva Samiti V. The Cpc 250/4, Juhi Lal Colony Bangalore Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aaaau7543F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2019-20. 3.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Society Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139(1) On 26.01.2021, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Assessee-Society Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.12,97,442/- Relating To The Amount Applied For Charitable & Religious Purposes During The Previous Year. The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

permission. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there was a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by Medical Certificate, Prescription ... recovery. It was also submitted that after her recovery from accident, she joined the office and approached the Counsel to file the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it was beyond the control of the assessee

Hakam Singh, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Sangrur, Sangrur

ITA 1130/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1130/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Hakam Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward - Sangrur Advocate, Vs. #527, Sector 10D,Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bdwps5185E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

merit. 1130-Chd-2024 Hakam Singh, Sangrur 6 5. Aggrieved, with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed a detailed written submissions on both the additions made

Shravan Seva Foundation, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 634/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshravan Seva Foundation, The Commissioner Of Vs. 18 Kishan Complex, Income Tax (Exemption), Opp. Yash Complex, Ahmedabad. Subhanpura, Vadodara-390023. [Pan :Abgcs8130 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Adjournment Application Filed Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Adjournment Application filedFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, as non- maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that the Ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application u/s.12A of the Act merely on the ground that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 466/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

given partial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee and Revenue, both are in appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue is in appeal against the relief allowed by the ld. CIT(A) while the assessee is in appeal against the addition

Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 349/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

given partial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee and Revenue, both are in appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue is in appeal against the relief allowed by the ld. CIT(A) while the assessee is in appeal against the addition

Pune Madhyamik Shikshak Sahkari Patapedhi Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune 4, Pune

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

ITA 909/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

heard to the assessee before passing the fresh assessment order.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to paras

Shrikrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 454/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Shrikrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Ito, Ward 10(1), Pune Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. Vadgaon Kashimbeg, Ambegaon, Pune – 410503 Pan: Aadas4001K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhay A Avchat Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 80P

NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity

Ganga Reddy Gidde, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80C

These grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining

Srinivas Reddy Mereddy, Rangareddy vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 48/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 132Section 139(4)Section 144Section 250Section 69Section 69A

sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, K.A. Sai Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions made