“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

Venugopal Reddy Gelivi, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 393/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Koneni Reddeppa Naidu, Chittoor vs. ITO., Ward -1, Madanapalle

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 166/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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 addition made

Ssnc Fintech Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 916/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Ketan K. VedFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 920

Software Development Segment. 4. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant-company is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, Ketan K. Ved, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, appellant-company seeks to exclude Infosys Limited from the list of final

Sri Venakteswara Swamy Devastanam, Jamalapuram vs. ITO., Exemption Ward1- (3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1003/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

For Appellant: Advocate E Hari BabuFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 11

impugned order in the Writ Petition No.18335/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court. However, since the proper remedy was to file the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has allowed the assessee to avail the statutory remedy of filing appeal and also made it clear that ... closed”. 5. Accordingly, when the time consumed before the Hon'ble High Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation in filing the appeal before this Tribunal as observed by the Hon'ble High Court, then the appeal of the assessee is found to be within the period of limitation

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, Jamalapuram vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1002/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Advocate E Hari BabuFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 11

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/HYD/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

delete the addition. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. CA, K C Devdas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

The Malnad Arecanut Syndicate Private Limited, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. Madhu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143Section 194Q

part of his total income or turnover. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the observation made

Anjali Malik, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Rohtak

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 132 days in filing the appeal and appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1504/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Anjali Malik, Vs. Ito, Ward 3, 190, Delhi Road, Rohtak. Civil Lines, Rohtak (Haryana) Pan No. Abopm2126J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that there is delay of 132 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal due to inaction of previous CA of the assessee. The explanation does not smack of mala fide as appellant had not gained anything

Mrs. Sunita Vijay, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-44(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1403/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs.Sunita Vijay, Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), B-62, 2Nd Floor, Sector-8, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi Pin: 1100 75 Pan No. Agepv2684H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

anything by not filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and Tribunal within period of limitation. Therefore, delay of 7 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal and 852 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) are condoned. 8. In view of above material facts, in the interest

Eastern and Western Dresses Trading Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-8(1), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1939/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Eastern & Western Dresses Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ward-8(1), No. 7, Shankar Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabce5153G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68

been established. 7. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” It in this factual backdrop that the assessee has filed the instant appeal before the tribunal. 4. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the department’s foregoing vehement contentions against

Bishwnath Jha, Balangir vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 278/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Biswanath Jha, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Gandhinagarpara, Balangir- Sambalpur 767001 Pan/Gir No. Abtpj 6411 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 11/01/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10177/2016-17 Passed For Assessment Year 2013- 14. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 397 Days. The Assessee Has Filed 2. Condonation Petition Dated 2.5.2025 Supported By An Affidavit Stating That The Order Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Dated 11.1.2024 & The Appeal P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

from the side of the assessee and accordingly, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want

Kalpana Ray, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rourkela

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

ITA 221/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Kalpana Ray Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Rourkela Gc 43 Rcms Complex, Panposh Road, Rourkela, 769004 Pan/Gir No. Aiapr 1980 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 27/08/2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10286787 Passed For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 152 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 31.3.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That The Assesse Was Suffering From L3/L4 Disk Bulge, Lower Back Pain & Leg Pain, For Which She Was Admitted In The Hospital & The P A G E 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 147

advised complete bed rest. The assessee being completely busy in her medical treatment, could not take necessary steps for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is stated that there is no evil intention and the delay was not deliberate. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay

Jeewandeep Health Education Cheritable Trust, Kodinar vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 899/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 899/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing) Jeewandeep Health Educa"On Vs. Cit (E), Ahmedabad Charitable Trust C/O Sloak Chavada 2/12 Rajnagar, Chorwadi Road Kodinar, Junagadh-362720, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtj2272Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jubair Jeri, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

first proviso to section 80G (5) of the Act is rejected and your provisional approval also stands cancelled. The assessee has filed an appeal before the tribunal against the order dated 26/09/2024 by Ld. CIT (E), Ahmedabad. AR submitted that the aim and object of the Trust are as under

Sas Infonet Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT ACIT(Cen)-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 834/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR (Virtual Hearing)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same and upheld the additions made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessee is a regularly assessed company engaged

Sas Infonet Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT ACIT(Cen)-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 833/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the AO.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Virsain Aggarwal, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR (Virtual Hearing)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

Salig Ram Timbers, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana, Punjab

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

ITA 778/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 250

grounds of appeal. The appeal was accordingly decided ex parte. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that all relevant documents and evidence had already been filed

K 113 Kugalur Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society, Kugalur, Gobi Tk vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 99/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Ms. R. Reshma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

order of the intimation passed by the CPC, Bangalore. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the FAA. 6. The Ld.DR has filed brief written submissions dated 07.05.2025 and 02.06.2025. The content

Jaganathan Abinaya, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 939/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book enclosing therein the bank statement of the assessee for the relevant assessment year, reply along with

Vaikundaramu Kanagavalli, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 861/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

reduced to Rs.8,80,630/- by the FAA. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR for the assessee has filed two sets of Paper-book enclosing therein the notices issued and response filed during the course