← 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

Mifthaahul Jannah Educational and Charitable Trust, Tirupur vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1082/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - Mifthaahul Jannah Educational & The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Charitable Trust, (Exemptions), No.1, M.K.M, Compound, 1St Street, Chennai. Noyyal Street, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 604. [Pan: Aaetm7514P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.Saravanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 138 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse could not notice the order of the Ld.CIT(E ), Chennai dated

No.4091 Mallasamudram Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-, Namakkal

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

ITA 1078/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1078/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 No.4091 Mallasamudram Primary Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Coop Credit Society Ltd, Ward-1, Mallasamudram. P.O. T.Gode.T.K., Namakkal. Namakkal D.T, Tamil Nadu- 637 503, [Pan: Aaban1134E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 80P

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 17 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a society with limited staff and had consumed more time than required

Ateequr Rahman Akbarsab Kondgulli, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

ITA 155/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

additional evidence and on the basis of information available, confirmed the order of the AO. 6. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The assessee has submitted that assessee submitted the copy of letter of intent, copy of bank statement and copy

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1477/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 148Section 148ASection 194Section 194ISection 250

Tribunal. The CIT(A) by placing reliance on the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench deleted the addition. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee during the year

Shivalik Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1445/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 148Section 148ASection 194Section 194ISection 250

Tribunal. The CIT(A) by placing reliance on the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench deleted the addition. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee during the year

K Sera Sera Cinelines & Miniplex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1360/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y.2020-21 - A.Y.2014-15 - A.Y.2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

legal grounds as well as on merits before the Ld. CIT(A), and the same grounds have also been raised in the present appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Ld. CIT(A), 3 ITAs 1358 to 1360/Mum/2025 K. Sera Sera Cinelines & Miniplex Pvt Ltd without examining the merits

K Sera Sera Cinelines & Miniplex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -7(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1359/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y.2020-21 - A.Y.2014-15 - A.Y.2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

legal grounds as well as on merits before the Ld. CIT(A), and the same grounds have also been raised in the present appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Ld. CIT(A), 3 ITAs 1358 to 1360/Mum/2025 K. Sera Sera Cinelines & Miniplex Pvt Ltd without examining the merits

K Sera Sera Cinelines&Miniplex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1358/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y.2020-21 - A.Y.2014-15 - A.Y.2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

legal grounds as well as on merits before the Ld. CIT(A), and the same grounds have also been raised in the present appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Ld. CIT(A), 3 ITAs 1358 to 1360/Mum/2025 K. Sera Sera Cinelines & Miniplex Pvt Ltd without examining the merits

Yashomandir Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5597/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 188 taxman 282 (SC). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the PCIT. 3. There is a delay of 521 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee ... condonation of delay and submitted that assessee being not aware of the law cannot be a valid ground for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Scal Services Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3773/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Learned CIT(A) deleted both the aforesaid additions vide order dated, 28/05/2024, which has been impugned by the Revenue by way of present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. Ground No.1&2 4. The Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue pertains to disallowance ... calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and deleted the aforesaid disallowance. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.2. We have heard both the sides on this issue and have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and material on record

Gairuboina Subbaiah L/R of Late Gairuboina Sambasiva Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 270/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194LSection 69A

disposed of the appeal exparte based on the merits available on record. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal: - “]. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 269/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

disposed of the appeal exparte based on the material available on record. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal: - “]. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

Shri Kishorbhai Panchabhai Chauhan, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1679/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Kishorbhai Panchbhai Ito, Ward-1(2) Shitla Ma Temple Vs Bhagnavar. Sidsar Road Chitra – Bhavnagar. Pan : Ardpc 3370 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Mohit Balani, Ar : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/06/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

case. 3. The Registry has flagged the appeal of the assessee as being barred by limitation by 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the reasons for the impugned delay that the assessee is a semi-illiterate

Gurudeodatta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Pune vs. The PCIT It-4, Pune

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

ITA 487/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SuryawanshiFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

heard to the assessee before passing the fresh assessment order.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. PCIT

Dharmbhaskar Rashtrasant Shripachlegavkar Maharj Pratishtan, Pune vs. Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2799/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri & Jasraj SutarFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)

appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. This is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under Society Registration Act, 1860. It is also ... separate adjudication. Hence, this ground is dismissed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.” Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following common grounds of appeal: "1. The Learned Assessing Officer (AO) erred in law and on facts by holding that

Dharmbhaskar Rashtrasant Shripachlegavkar Maharj Pratishtan, Pune vs. Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2736/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri & Jasraj SutarFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)

appeals are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. This is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under Society Registration Act, 1860. It is also ... separate adjudication. Hence, this ground is dismissed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.” Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following common grounds of appeal: "1. The Learned Assessing Officer (AO) erred in law and on facts by holding that

Prathik Steels, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 509/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, admittedly, the Assessee-Firm is a NPA and therefore, the assessee

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Imc Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 375/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1) Imc Limited Aaykar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, 232/A, Ajc Bose Road, Vs. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700055, West Bengal Kolkata-700055, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci6885R Assessee By : Shri K. M. Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

submission that the order u/s 263 of the Act was a subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1006/KOL/2019 and the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 25th August, 2023, had quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. It was the submission that ... take the last page of his order passed u/s 250 of the Act which is a subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal herein had accepted that the ITAT Kolkata Benches had quashed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 11.02.2019 and consequently, held that the order

Jasmine Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1089/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1089/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year. : 2012-2013) Jasmine Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-9(3), Kolkata 1447/1, Madurdaha Road, West Bengal Pan No. :Aaccj 0563 G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Ranu Biswas, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.05.2023, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y.2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. Ranu Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Outset, We Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 666 Days. In This Regard The Assessee Has Sworn In Affidavit That Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Passing Of The Appellate Order For Which The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal Before The Tribunal Within The Stipulated Time. This Contention Of The Assessee Is Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Admittedly The Ao Had Made Addition U/S.68 Of The Act In Respect Of Share Application Money Received

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ranu Biswas, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 68

affidavit that due to lack of knowledge about the passing of the appellate order for which the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. This contention of the assessee is plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shivrashi Infraprojects Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 2328/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. That on the facts of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ... also been deleted. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of Ld. DR.. The Ld. AR submitted that