“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

Ramakrishnan Gurusamy, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(8), Salem

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

ITA 488/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:488/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Ramakrishnan The Income Tax Officer, Gurusamy, Vs. Ward 1(8), 26-1/A, Meenavar Kudiyiruppu Salem. Paguthi, Kaveri Bridge, Metturdam, Salem – 636 401. Pan: Anqpr 4563E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 148Section 151lSection 250Section 69

produced PAN, ITR and confirmation letters of the lenders. 7. Aggrieved by the FAA’s order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee has obtained the relevant details such as identity of the creditors, the capacity of the creditor to advance money

Shailesh Bansilal Desai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 4773/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)

decided the appeal ex-parte based on the material available on record confirming the additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR during

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Joginder Singh, Haryana

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2479/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.1684/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Cit, Shri Harjeet Singh Central Circle-31, House No.22, Mandkola Teh. New Delhi. Vs. Hathin, Faridabad Haryana-121001. Pan: Bpips2997Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.153/Del/2022 Arising Out Of Ita No.153/Del/2021 Assessment Year 2013-14 C.O. No.154/Del/2022 Arising Out Of Ita No.154/Del/2021 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Harjeet Singh Dy. Cit, House No.22, Central Circle-31, Mandkola Teh. Hathin, Vs. New Delhi. Faridabad Haryana-121001. Pan: Bpips2997Q (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 69A

additions made were deleted 4 ITA No.1684/Del/2021 & Ors. DCIT Vs. Harjeet Singh by Ld. CIT(A). Against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan New Delhi vs. Sh. Joginder Singh, Haryana

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2478/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Section 250Section 69A

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Harjeet Singh, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1684/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Section 250Section 69A

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Harjeet Singh, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1683/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Section 250Section 69A

Veer Project, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur

ITA 332/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 332/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before the tribunal, which is under consideration in the present case. 4 Veer Project vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur 6. At the outset, on perusal of the order

Arihant Agencies, Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1 Raipur, Central Circle Raipur

ITA 326/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No:326/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 69

assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Dissatisfied with the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before the tribunal, which is under consideration in the present case. 7. Ostensibly, the aforesaid appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) has been decided

Jai Durga Surgicals Private Limited, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Patna

ITA 363/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) Jai Durga Surgicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Patna 101, Lotus Apartment, New Patliputra Colony, Bihar Pan No. :Aabcj 7962 N (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

deposit in cash during the demonetization period in absence of any positive materials to substantiate the same. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal against the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Arpit Hotel, Patna vs. DCIT Central Circle 3, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/PAT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

Section 147Section 148

deposit in cash during the demonetization period in absence of any positive materials to substantiate the same. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal against the addition confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. The Sutex Co.Operative Bank Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.780/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. The Sutex Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ward – 1(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Bank Block, Surat Textile Surat Market, Ring Road, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat2953Q (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

No.780/SRT/2024/AY.2016-17 The Sutex Co-op. Bank Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue relied on the order of AO. He submitted that there are no rural branches and, hence, deduction

Itec Measures Private Limited, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Vapi

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

ITA 1250/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1250/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Itec Measures Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Plot No.397-398, Silvassa Road, Ward - 3, Gidc, Gujarat - 396195 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp8921K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushbu Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

offer any explanation with respect of the transaction, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book containing 140 pages. In the written submission

Nelsoft Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

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

ITA 926/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Rahul Mehta & Yash DagaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. PCIT and the paper

Kai Dr Subhashrao Dhaknebahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2209/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Mahendra BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G

earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner

Kai Dr Subhashrao Dhaknebahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2208/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Mahendra BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G

Devarapalli Bharathamma, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 355/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

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. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find

Narender Batchu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 111/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. Vishnu Priya, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.111/Hyd./2025 5. Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to additional evidences filed by the assessee

Tnspl 88 Keelaeral Primary Agriculture Co-Op Society, Tuticorin vs. ITO Ward 2, Tuticorin

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

ITA 724/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 724/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 M/S. Tnspl 88 Keelaeral The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2, Society, Tuticorin. Keelaeral Village, Keelaeral Post, Ettayapuram Taluk, Tuticorin – 628 908. Pan: Aacat 5739L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

filed petition for condonation of delay. 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. The assessee is a primary ... appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA was neither willful or deliberate since the assessee was pursuing

Subramaniam Saravanan, Tiruppur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Tiruppur

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

ITA 723/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 722 & 723/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Subramaniam Saravanan, The Income Tax Officer, 45-E/174, West Street, Vs. Ward 2(3), Kalipalayam, Tiruppur. Pallapalayam, Somanur, Tirupur – 641 663. Pan: Bewps 4347M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 144Section 250

Portal and found the appellate order in respect of quantum appeal has already been passed. Immediately the Ld.AR took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal against the quantum order and penalty order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee was unaware of the appellate order in respect ... notices vide email or to their mobile. 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. At the very outset

Subramaiam Saravanan, Tirupur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Tiruppur

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

ITA 722/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 144Section 250