← 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

Vinayak Bahiru Medge, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 569/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.569/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 144Section 148Section 148A

/NFAC therefore dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4.1 Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that notices of hearing issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC went

Briliants Education Society, Latur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 568/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36A

application of the assessee and also cancelling the provisional registration earlier granted to the assessee on 09.12.2022. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 3 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) non-compliance

Shree Agasti Education Society, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 462/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 2Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The assessee prays to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal

Gramvikas Sanstha Chikhali, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 460/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 12ASection 800(5)Section 800(5)(v)Section 800(5)(vi)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(v)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the application filed

Abhinav Shikshan Sanstha, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 459/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 12ASection 800(5)Section 800(5)(v)Section 800(5)(vi)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(v)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relates thereto. “1. The assessee prays to condone the delay of 90 days in filing the present

Pragatik Shikshan Sanstha, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 458/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Amod Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. The assessee prays to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal for the reasons

Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 457/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The assessee prays to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal

Shri Ganesh Bahujan Vidyaprasaraksanstha, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 456/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The assessee prays to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal

Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 236 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed stating as follows: “On 15.05.2024 I received the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Faceless, in my case

Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 121/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

course of appellate proceedings before him to rebut the findings made by the Ld. AO. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law of the learned NFAC

Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 120/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

credits appearing in its bank account during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings before him. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law of the learned

Trishakti Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2863/PUN/2024[- NA -]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

read with clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act is hereby cancelled.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Shirgaon vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2858/PUN/2024[- NA -]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

read with clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act is hereby cancelled.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal :- 3 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Maharashtra Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Pune vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2651/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2651 & 2573/Pun/2024 Vs. Maharashtra Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Survey No. 36/2, Gandhi Bhavan, Kothrud, Pune-411038 Pan : Aaatm4190R अपीलार्थी / Appellant Cit(Exemption), Pune प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2025 Date Of 30-06-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 13.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(Exemption)"] Rejecting The Application(S) For Grant Of Registration U/S 12A & Approval U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act"). For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. In Ita No.2651/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(Exemption) In Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act While Ita No.2573/Pun/2025 Relates To The Order Of The Cit(Exemption) In Denying The Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

section code by the assessee while filing the said application. 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: "1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

Maharashtra Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2573/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2651 & 2573/Pun/2024 Maharashtra Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Survey No. 36/2, Gandhi Bhavan, Kothrud, Pune-411038 Vs. Cit(Exemption), Pune Pan : Aaatm4190R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 13.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(Exemption)"] Rejecting The Application(S) For Grant Of Registration U/S 12A & Approval U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act"). For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. In Ita No.2651/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(Exemption) In Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act While Ita No.2573/Pun/2025 Relates To The Order Of The Cit(Exemption) In Denying The Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

section code by the assessee while filing the said application. 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: "1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

Vishal Negi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.95/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Vishal Negi Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan: Abkpn5497R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 18/11/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl./Jcit(A) Udaipur Relating To A.Y. 2022-23. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Appellant, An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y 2022-23 On 30/07/2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.89,74,680/- & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit Of Rs.49,65,499/-. The Return Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Officer has rightly denied credit for Foreign Tax Credit. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the various facts submitted that, the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the demand

Nightingale Social Welfare Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 589/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Samala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 154

reasons for the delay in filing the present appeals. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the due date for filing the appeals before the Tribunal expired on 28.02.2025. However, prior to the expiry of the limitation period, the assessee had filed a rectification application under section ... orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the rectification would be allowed and the issue resolved at that stage. Hence, the appeals before the Tribunal were not filed within the prescribed period. 2.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that there was no intentional delay. The delay occurred while

Nightingale Social Welfare Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 588/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Samala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 154

reasons for the delay in filing the present appeals. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the due date for filing the appeals before the Tribunal expired on 28.02.2025. However, prior to the expiry of the limitation period, the assessee had filed a rectification application under section ... orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the rectification would be allowed and the issue resolved at that stage. Hence, the appeals before the Tribunal were not filed within the prescribed period. 2.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that there was no intentional delay. The delay occurred while

Late Vamanrao Ramalingam Arcot L/R by Sangeetha Vamanrao, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/HYD/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Vamanrao Ramalingam Vs. Income Tax Officer Arcot L/R By Smt. Sangeetha Ward 13 (1) Vamanrao, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aclpa4148G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A A.V. Saisudha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/06/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A A.V. SaisudhaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

29/01/2025 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2014-15. 2. There is a delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit by the Legal Heir of the diseased assessee explaining the cause

Tewhima Permaculture Foundation, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 570/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.570/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Tewhima Permaculture Vs. Income Tax Officer Foundation Ward-9(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aajct7050P]

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurupreet Singh,DR
Section 12ASection 2

application filed in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12AB. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee Shri P.Vinod, Advocate submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) is erred in rejection of application filed in Form10AB