← 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

M/S. the Arni Agri Producers Cooperative Mktg. Society Ltd., Arni vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvannamalai

ITA 963/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 963/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Arni Agri Producers The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Marketing Vs. Ward 1, Society Ltd., Tiruvannamalai. 383, Market Roa, Arni – 632 301. Pan: Aacat 9589J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate For Shri K. Ravi, 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 : 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate for Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 250

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated ... approached their higherups for advices” 3. 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. 4. Brief facts of the case

Subbarayalu Kannan Rajagopal, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals), Chennai

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

ITA 477/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 477/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 Shri Subbarayalu Kannan The Income Tax Officer, Rajagopal, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.3, Plot No.42, Chennai Sri Dhanalakshmi Subbaraya, Rajeswari Nagar First Main, Karambakkam, Porur, Chennai – 600 116. Pan: Dtipr 0719H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 250

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20. 2. There is a delay of 109 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated ... filed within the prescribed time. 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. 3. At the very outset, we notice

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sea Point Trading & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judical Member & Shri Manish Agarwalasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Sea Point Trading & Income Tax, Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. B-4/43, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Pan: Aabcs0741C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Ld. Cit(A), In Short], Dt. 29.01.2026 In Appeal No. 16/2015-16 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short). 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Laws In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,35,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act Received From M/S Manan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.”

Section 127Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

sustainable and, further on merits and deleted the addition of rs.6,35,00,000/-. Against such order Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding the addition made on merits. However, the Revenue