← 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

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

additions or disallowances after due verification by giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee took the Bench through the three issues as enumerated in the show cause notice, placed

Sanganeriya Spinning Mills Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-23(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2157/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

been established. Accordingly, vide order dated 17.02.2025, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has vehemently argued that the assessee had fully discharged its onus u/s 68 by furnishing the following details

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Venus Portfolios Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 3826/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

assessee on both the issues, vide his order dated 26.06.2024. 3.2 Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Addition of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- u/s 68 Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the assessee had received unsecured loans

Choday Janaki Ramayya Chowdary, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 623/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

appeal before CIT(A) but without success. 6. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of authorities below and the material available

Sri Venkateswara Oil Distributors, Guntur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gunter

ITA 444/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Venkateswara Oil Distributors 9. The assessee-firm, being aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. I have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties and perused the orders of the authorities below, as well as considered

Sai Siddhi Constructions, Satana vs. CIT(A), Nashik

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

ITA 3088/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3088/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sai Siddhi Constructions, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shramik Nagar, Ward-1, Malegaon Satana, Nampur Road, Baglan, Nashik 423 301 Maharashtra Pan : Aaabs8205M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

dated 29.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 287 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay and relevant contents are reproduced below: “I am a civil contractor and a construction worker

Rajesh Balram Singh, Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

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

ITA 2962/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ritvik VatsyayanFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsing the findings of the Ld. AO. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. The learned AO erred in treating the entire Rs 70,00,000/- as short term capital

Srushti Conservation Foundation, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2670/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

without going into the merits of the case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has already been granted registration

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate vs. Shivai Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

arise. This ground is therefore allowed for statistical purposes only.” 3 ITA No.2536/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Kailash Dayanand Punjabi, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Dhule

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

ITA 2464/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. AO erred in making (CIT-A erred in confirming) addition of Rs.5

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ahmednagar vs. Deepak Baburao Vispute, Kopargaon

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

ITA 2399/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Smt Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

restrict the same to 10% of the same. 6 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: i) On the facts and the circumstances of the case

Agarwal Enterprises, Pune vs. A.O, Pune

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

ITA 1713/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Madan Thirmanpalli, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 80I

allocated to share trading unit. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in making a disallowance of Rs.2,62,396/- out of the total salary expenditure

Samarth Bharat Sanskar Kendra, Ambernath vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1707/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 144 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay ... 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the non-compliance before

Mustafa Alihusain Sunelwala, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

section (8) of section 270A of the Act. This argument is dismissed. This ground is, therefore, dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty

Jaydev Mahadev Arya, Latur vs. ITO Ward 1, Latur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

ground of appeal no.1 to 6 are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the learned AO vide his assessment

Jaydev Mahadev Arya, Latur vs. ITO Ward 1, Latur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1271/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

ground of appeal no.1 to 6 are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the learned AO vide his assessment

Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Latur vs. Vimal Jaydev Arya, Latur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2156/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

No.15/PUN/2025 8 CO No.15/PUN/2025 9 CO No.15/PUN/2025 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in his/her observation

M/S. King Mobiles, Vellore vs. ITO Ward 1 Vellore, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 236/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.236/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 & S.A. No. 09/Chny/2026 [In Ita No.236/Chny/2026]

For Appellant: Mr. Ravi Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

reason that the assessee did not respond to the notices nor did the assessee filed any submissions. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

Coordinate Bench in the case of another partner of CRLC Mr. Gokulakrishna vs. DCIT in ITA No.1088/Chny/2025 dated 17.06.2025. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized

Ss58Slmdtgov Hrsecschool Staff Coop Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 2984/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2984/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80ASection 80P

confirmed the decision of the A.O by placing reliance on Section 80AC of the Act. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. During the course of hearing