← 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

Maya Devi, Bhiwani vs. ITO, Ward-1, Narnoul

Appeal is allowed

ITA 751/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147

parties and perused the records. 3. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 102 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, it is observed during the hearing that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing belated appeal before the Tribunal ... hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and proceeded further. 4. Brief facts of the case are that AO had information that assessee had purchased an immovable property for consideration of Rs. 69,00,000/- + Rs. 3,43,000/- during the year

Braham Singh, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Central Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5731/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs. Assessment Unit, Village Hasanpur Po Ujwa Income Tax Deptt. Chander, New Delhi – 110 073 Room No. 402, Mayur Bhawan, Connaght Place, New Delhi – 1 (Pan: Fhmps9910M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068073346(1) Dated 28.8.2024 Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Records. 3. It Transpires That There Is Delay Of 41 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. During The Hearing, Reasonable Cause Has Been Attributed To The Assessee For Filing The Belated Appeal Before The Tribunal. Hence, I Am Condoning The Delay In Dispute In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. 4. It Also Emerges With The Able Assistance Coming From Both The Sides That The Learned Cit(A)/Nfac Has Refused To Condone The Corresponding Delay Of 162 Days In Institution Of The Assessee’S Lower

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Heard both the parties at length and perused the records. 3. It transpires that there is delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. During the hearing, reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I am condoning ... delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It also emerges with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has refused to condone the corresponding delay of 162 days in institution of the assessee’s lower appeal filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Jhandewalan vs. Air Charter Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4743/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.4743, 4736 और4742/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15 से 2016-17)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 44A

assessee. The assessee has also deducted TDS on the payments. Against the aforesaid findings of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Shri Ashish Tripathi, vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A) on this issue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Jhandewalan vs. Air Charter Services Private Limited, Room No

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4742/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.4743, 4736 और4742/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15 से 2016-17)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 44A

assessee. The assessee has also deducted TDS on the payments. Against the aforesaid findings of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Shri Ashish Tripathi, vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A) on this issue

DCIT, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi vs. Air Charter Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.4743, 4736 और4742/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15 से 2016-17)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 44A

assessee. The assessee has also deducted TDS on the payments. Against the aforesaid findings of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Shri Ashish Tripathi, vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing findings of the CIT(A) on this issue

Income Tax Officer - 1(1), Raipur vs. Kamlesh Kumar Kukreja, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

effect involved in the present appeal is only Rs.45,000/- which is below the prescribed limit of Rs.60 lakhs for filing appeal before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024 issued by the CBDT. In this regard, the Range Head and the A.O had opined as evident

Alumni Association of Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture - Rajkot, Rajkot vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 940/RJT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 940/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Alumni Associa"On Of Indubhai Parekh School Vs. The Cit(Exemp"On), Ahmedabad Of Architecture, Rajkot- 360005, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahta9691E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Sr.D.R
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee, since no order has been received by the assessee. And after receiving the order by the assessee, the assessee immediately file the appeal before this Tribunal. That the assessee has not given due care and attention towards this case. Keeping in view of the fact we impose a cost ... rejected and provisional registration is also cancelled. 6.3 Therefore, aggrieved by the above order of CIT(E), the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. A.R. submitted that the trust has been in existence from 11.12.2019 with the charitable object of imparting education. A trust has a registered office

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

vide para 7.9 of his order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad is erroneous both in law and on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

vide para 7.9 of his order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad is erroneous both in law and on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Duggirala

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

vide para 7.9 of his order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad is erroneous both in law and on facts

The Palakkad Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 872/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 The Palakkad Co-Operative Ito, Ward-2, Palakkad V. Marketing Society Ltd.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. In this connection, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of such delay and after considering the same, we condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication

L K Sons Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-9, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Ms. Diksha AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

confirmed.” 3 ITA No.45/PUN/2025, AY 2011-12 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the entire addition(s) made by the Ld. AO/CIT(A) based on which penalty ... Sons Alloy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-9, Pune for AY 2011-12. Perusal thereof, reveals that the assessee had gone in appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 30.01.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Pune in which the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition

Csr Pune, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 421/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay ShastriFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 48 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application under Section 12A solely on limitation grounds, disregarding

Csr Pune, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 420/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay ShastriFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 48 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents ... earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application under Section 12A solely on limitation grounds, disregarding

Chaitali Hotels, Kolhapur vs. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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

ITA 1846/PUN/2024[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

payable on the income of Rs.5,06,267/-……” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 270A

Cricketmaharashtra@Yahoo.Com, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1724/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

section 12 of the act. The assessment of Rs.170099881 as income of the AOP is confirmed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. At the outset the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned issue is covered

Income Tax Officer 41(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Anish Balkrishna Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 894/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Jigna JainFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44ASection 68

shows that tax effect involved in appeal is Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Board Circular (supra) has enhanced monetary limit for filing of appeal before the Tribunal to Rs.60,00,000/-. Thus, in light of aforesaid Board Circular, appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on CO.No.66/Mum/2025

Income Tax Officer 41(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Anish Balkrishna Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 893/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Jigna JainFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44ASection 68

shows that tax effect involved in appeal is Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Board Circular (supra) has enhanced monetary limit for filing of appeal before the Tribunal to Rs.60,00,000/-. Thus, in light of aforesaid Board Circular, appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on CO.No.66/Mum/2025

Mount Olive'S Welfare Trust, Gumla vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward- Ranchi, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 252/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal was due to the fact that after corona virus

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Goenka, ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr hri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR

time barred by 75 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 27.5.2024 supported by affidavit , stating that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was due to the fact that after corona virus pandemic, the health of the Trustee Mr Anil Kindo started deteriorating

Accrecent Way Marketing (P) Ltd., Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

ITA 358/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 68

been passed against the assessment order passed by the u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2013. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts as well ... appeal of the assessee was accordingly dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 7. Before us the assessee has also made