“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

Adhar Project Welfare Society, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2677/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

income filed as applicable to AOP. In view of the above, the ground of appeal is rejected.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that during the relevant AY 2016-17, the assessee

Bollineni Developers Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 580/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Bollineni Developers Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 1 ( 1 ) Pan:Aaacb8237D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Satya Dinakar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Appellant Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Projects & Civil Construction Works & Power Projects. The Appellant Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 29/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Satya Dinakar, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)

sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 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) erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/HYD/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.579/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Temple, Hyderabad (Exemptions) Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Srikanth Sirigadi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 31/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple Is A Deity Registered U/S 12A & 12Aa Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Temple Is Under The Management & The Administrative Control Of The Endowment

For Appellant: Shri Srikanth Sirigadi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 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) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer

Gopikishan Pallod, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Gopikishan Pallod Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aanpp8665K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Parameshwar G. Chintakula राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2023-24. 2. There Is A Delay Of 29 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Explained The Reasons For Such Delay In Filing The Appeal. After Considering The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay Of 29 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: C.A. Parameshwar G. ChintakulaFor Respondent: : Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 194

Gopikishan Pallod argument of the assessee and accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in upholding the reasons given by the Assessing Officer

Thota Raghu Buchanna, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 542/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Thota Raghu Buchanna Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-15(2) [Pan :Aftpt6248K] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Vinod, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 22.12.2014, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,93,210/-. The Assessment Has Been Subsequently Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) On The Ground That As Per

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

towards loan u/s 68 of the Act. 3 Thota Raghu Buchanna 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, Shri P.Vinod, Advocate, referring to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the first notice

Adarsh Medical Hall, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 287/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adarsh Medical Hall Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-7(1) [Pan :Aagfa5186R] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri R.Mohan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

amount of advance tax which was payable by him. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mohan Kumar, Advocate submitted that the assessment proceedings before the AO was ex-parte. The assessee

Fms Welfare Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 276/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

No.10AB, seeking registration u/s 80G of the Act with similar observations. 3. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(E) order, the appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, Shri C.Suresh, CA, referring to the main objects of the appellant Trust submitted that the appellant Trust

Fms Welfare Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 275/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

Prestar Infrastructure Projects Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 802/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 253(3)Section 5

instant appeal within the 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. Because on the basis of law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, order ... delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the details filed have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted before us that

Gurupada Maji, Purulia vs. Addl. C.I.T., Central Range - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 393/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. Nos.: 376, 391, 392 and 393/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 to 2021-22 Gurupada Maji. 4. Rival submissions were heard

Gurupada Maji, Purulia vs. Addl. C.I.T., Central Range - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 392/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

Gurupada Maji, Purulia vs. Addl. C.I.T., Central Range - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 391/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

Gurupada Maji, Purulia vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 376/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

Iq City Knowledge and Health Campus, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exmption), Kolkata

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

ITA 17/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-2023

For Appellant: Ayush Gupta, ARFor Respondent: P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected in limine. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. It was submitted before

Jogmaya Construction Company, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both on account of delay as well as on merits

ITA 1063/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251

appeal is hereby dismissed on account of delay. 2. Further, even on merits the assessee has no case. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) That the Ld. CIT(A) had wrongly drafted the order by making addition of Purchase even though

Seri Multiple Asset Investment, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-29, Kolkata

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

ITA 2630/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250

dated 28.12.2018. I.T.A. No.: 2630/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Seri Multiple Asset Investment. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre ... assessee is allowed to withdraw the appeal.” Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the details filed have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted before us that

Pramod Lakra, DCIT Circle 11.1, Kolkata vs. Philips India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2283/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: AY 2012-13: “1. That on the facts of the case ... partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeals before this Tribunal. I.T.A. Nos.: 2280, 2281 & 2283/KOL/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Philips India Limited. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Philips India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2281/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Philips India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Appasamy Saroja, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 3204/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 250

filed with a delay of 77 days. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset