“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

Jito Mulund Chapter Foundation, Thane vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2528/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamorejito Mulund Chapter Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Manba House, Plot No-A 79, Vs. Road No.16, Wagle Estate, Thane (West), - 400604, Maharashtra Pan: Aafcj5968C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Gupta Department By : Shri Sandeep Sengupta, Cit Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

cancelling the provisional registration granted earlier u/s 12AB of the Act. 2. There is a delay of 429 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed the condonation application along with an affidavit requesting for condonation of delay. The contents of the affidavit ... Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has erred

Dr M Bhanu Prasad Memorial Trust, Kakinada vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 39/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Keerthana, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

substantial charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is a trust duly registered under Section 12A of the Act as evident

Gayatri Eci, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 754/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

considered necessary." 3. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been submitted by the learned Authorised Representative

Srinivas Emmadi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 32/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.32/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2014-15) Shri Srinivas Emmadi, Hyderabad. Pan:Aafpe1439A (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sangareddy. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2025 घोषणा की रीख/Pronounce Ment: 23/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Srinivas Emmadi ("The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)"), Dated 20.06.2023 For The A.Y. 2014-15.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144

hearing." ITA No.32/Hyd/2024 | 3 3. At the outset, it was observed that, there is a delay of 144 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. In support of the same, the assessee has filed condonation petition along with a copy of Affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay

Ragupathy Murugan, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

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

ITA 999/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 999 & 1000/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 Shri Ragupathy Murugan, The Income Tax Officer, 80, Mararajapuram, Vs. Ward 1, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Villupuram. Villupuram – 605 602. Pan: Bltpm 8322G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Nidhi Jain, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

under medical observation and was not in a position to respond or look into any hearing notices issued during appeal proceedings nor file appeal before the Tribunal with time allowed. The assessee has produced medical certificate in support of his contention. On perusal of the aforesaid reason stated

Subramaniyam Kulandhaivel, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 976/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Shri Subramaniyam The Income Tax Officer, Kulandhaivel, Vs. Ward 1, No.7/51, Vadugapalayam, Namakkal. Mavureddipatti Post, Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 212. Pan: Aznpk 3744M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 250Section 253(6)

Court had held that when an appeal was rejected by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground of limitation, the fee payable for further appeal before this Tribunal, was only 500/- under clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. In our opinion, there is not much difference between ... vide email or to their mobile.” 6. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 7. At the very outset

M Malarvizhi, Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Ncc-2, Madurai

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

ITA 361/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Sashank Srivatsan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

same in the appellate proceedings does not arise. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the FAA, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the FAA. 7. The Ld.DR supported the order of the First Appellate Authority. 8. We have heard

Jaya Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1031/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 154Section 263

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

Elsie Mathew, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1001/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 250

passed the appellate order dated 18.10.2016 in favour of assessee, against which the Department had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same had already been dismissed by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.40/Mds/2017 (order dated 17.08.2017). The Ld.AR further submitted that for the same appeal

Ragupathy Murugan, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

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

ITA 1000/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhn, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2073/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

final reassessment order, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 13.03.2023 and also ITA No.1072 & 2073/CHNY/2024 as an abundant caution filed appeal before the Tribunal on 26.07.2023. The appeal filed before the ITAT was dismissed in ITA No.859/CHNY/2023 (order dated 07.05.2024). The appeal of the assessee was dismissed

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhd, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1072/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Nam Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3015/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR AR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

observed that the ld. CIT(A) had earlier dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte and the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal, where the same was remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication and in the second round of appeal, the assessee is said

Mark Corporate Advisores Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5765/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Mark Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 404/1, The Summit Business Bay, Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Sant Janabai Road, Opp Western Mumbai Express Highway, Vs. Vile Parle East S.O., Mumbai – 400057 (Pan: Aafcm5379J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Ms. Vaishali More, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who sustained the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Important fact to be borne in mind is that assessee is a regular trader in stock market having main business of share

DCIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Sahil Vachani, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

assessee could not complete the construction of the house and therefore, CIT(A) deleted the penalty in dispute. Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Originally, the Revenue has raised 02 grounds along with Appeal Memo filed in Form No. 36 on 15.09.2023, but subsequently, during the course

Pawan Agarwal, Shillong vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati

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

ITA 151/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Agarwal. 09.05.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 18.04.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the order of assessment passed ... 151/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pawan Agarwal. 3.2 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 paper book filed have been examined. Before us, it was argued

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Morbi vs. M/S. Kishan Plus Minarals, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

ITA 124/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

rather it is a mistake of the department in providing information to the assessee to the effect that they had preferred the appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore this minor delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. However

Youth Service Centre, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 585/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80G

order passed by Ld. CIT(E). After consulting with consultant and consent of all trustees, the assessee trust had decided to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. It was as a result of aforesaid reasons that there was a delay of 78 days in filing of the Youth Service Centre

D S Trading, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271A

upward adjustment of INR 3,95,83,601/-. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. I. Non-consideration of the exponential increase in Demurrage & Detention charges of INR 2,57,46,964/- as extra-ordinary cost

Navalai Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ITO Ward 4, Satara

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

ITA 1085/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1085/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 144Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

passed u/s.144 r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal Application. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed stating the reasons which led to delay in filing the appeal which reads ... pandemic restrictions but still ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the nature of activity carried out by the assessee remains the same. Even for the preceding