← 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

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

For Appellant: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 91

rejecting the claim for FTC. 3 Nanda Kishore Ravula 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, Shri Nikhill Tiwari, 5. Advocate submitted that, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hydreabad

ITA 472/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessee as well as the Revenue are now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came-up for consideration from grounds of appeal of Assessee and ground nos.3, 4 and 5 of Revenue's appeal is, enhancement

Venkatesh Kammari, Chevella vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

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

ITA 465/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K P BinduFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

limine for delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA K P Bindu, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing 4 ITA.No.465/Hyd

Ram Mohana Reddy Baddigam, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 422/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 153CSection 69A

dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. CA P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition of Rs.3

Ram Mohana Reddy Baddigam, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 421/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 153CSection 69A

dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. CA P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition of Rs.3

Ram Mohana Reddy Baddigam, Guntur vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 420/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 153CSection 69A

dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. CA P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition of Rs.3

Ram Mohana Reddy Baddigam, Guntur vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 419/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 153CSection 69A

dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. CA P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition of Rs.3

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hydeabad vs. Msn Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.396/Hyd

ITA 396/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad And Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

885/Hyd./2024 dated 08.11.2024. 5 ITA.Nos.394 & 396/Hyd./2025 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the Assessee has filed petition under Rule-27 of Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963. 5. Shri B. Bala Krishna, learned

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hydreabad vs. Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.396/Hyd

ITA 394/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad And Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

885/Hyd./2024 dated 08.11.2024. 5 ITA.Nos.394 & 396/Hyd./2025 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the Assessee has filed petition under Rule-27 of Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963. 5. Shri B. Bala Krishna, learned

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessee as well as the Revenue are now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came-up for consideration from grounds of appeal of Assessee and ground nos. 3, 4 and 5 of Revenue’s appeal ... assessment years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. 17. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 18. Shri B Bala Krishna, learned CIT-DR submitted that, the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that 150% of purchases

Damodar Reddy Kaiti, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward - 9(1), Hydrabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 372/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2025 & 372/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Damodar Reddy Kaiti Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan :Aehpk0424M] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurupreet Singh, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

computing the income of the assessee at Rs.4,86,54,865/-. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 18.07.2022 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and restored the case

Damodar Reddy Kaiti, Hydeabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1)., Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 371/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2025 & 372/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Damodar Reddy Kaiti Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan :Aehpk0424M] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurupreet Singh, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

computing the income of the assessee at Rs.4,86,54,865/-. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 18.07.2022 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and restored the case

Kiran Kumar Reddy Kataru, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 255/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.255/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Kiran Kumr Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Kataru, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(1) Pan:Atppk6672A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, 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, 10/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Managing Director Of M/S.Axis Energy Venture India Pvt. Ltd, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y 2021-22 On 28/01/2022 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.50,80,000/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Was Conducted In The Case Of M/S.Axis Energy Venture India Pvt. Ltd On 10/12/2020 & As A Part Of The Search Operation, The Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devadas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132

value of jewellery to the extent of 110gms only. 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 submitted that, the learned CIT (A) having accepted the fact that, the assessee family having jewellery

Invesco(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 111/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Rs.39,52,68,990/-. 5. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant-company is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The first issue that came-up for consideration through ground nos.1.1 to 1.4 of the assessee’s appeal is addition towards interest

Rituparna Biswas, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 26(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 904/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 68

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Authorities below has erred in law and in fact by not considering the additions

Peaceful Agencies Private Limited (Now Merged With Nirmiti Realties Private Limited), Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 868/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

I.T.A. No.: 868/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Peaceful Agencies Private Limited (Now merged with Nirmiti Realties Private Limited). 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of income without granting proper opportunity ... vide order dated 17/02/2025 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that both before

Purnima Bhadra Charitable Trust, Naihati vs. C.I.T., Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 538/KOL/2025[--]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.: 537 & 538/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. Purnima Bhadra Charitable Trust. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 537/KOL/2025: “1. That the rejection of form 10AB for Sec 12A is arbitrary

Purnima Bhadra Charitable Trust, Naihati vs. C.I.T., Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 537/KOL/2025[--]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.: 537 & 538/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. Purnima Bhadra Charitable Trust. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 537/KOL/2025: “1. That the rejection of form 10AB for Sec 12A is arbitrary

Income Tax Officer, Asansol vs. Shri Ram Multicom, Raniganj

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 219/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

order u/s 154 of the Act, dated 17.03.2022. I.T.A. No.: 219/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Ram Multicom. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A), NF AC was justified in allowing the appeal filed ... issued on 17th September, 2024, the CBDT has directed its subordinate authorities not to file appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal if the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than ₹60,00,000/-. Such order could

M/S. Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, we are here angry the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2600/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 31.03.2019. I.T.A. Nos.: 2599 and 2600/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 2599/KOL/2024: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (here-in-after referred