“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

Nataraja Ravichandran, Tirunelveli vs. ITO Circle 1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 708/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 708/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Shri Nataraja Ravichandran, The Income Tax Officer, 26/10, B Aruna Building, Vs. Circle 1, Main Road, Krishnapuram, Tirunelveli. Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli – 627 751. Pan: Alcpr 6144D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, 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 : 04.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 250

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. At the very outset

Krishnan Chinnadurai, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 698/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Krishnan Chinnadurai, The Income Tax Officer, No.9, Perumal Reddy Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 10(1), Southupakkam Road, Chennai. Redhills, Chennai – 600052. Pan: Apcpc 6564J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, 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 : 04.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT

Section 144Section 250

received the notice dated 06.01.2025 to recover the outstanding demand. Thereafter, the assessee took steps to contact the Income Tax professional and filed appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in a delay of 401 days. 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 that the CIT(A)’s order is ex- parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the seven notices

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai vs. M/S. Emrald Realty Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 2957/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2956/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2957/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 260A

dismissed. 3.0 It has been further noted that there is a delay of 21 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the Revenue has pleaded that the some extra time got consumed in filing of this appeal as the issue was being

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai vs. M/S. Emrald Realty Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 2956/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 260A

Kaushik Vijay Joshi, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2629/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa Gami, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Mr. P D Chougule, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 54

present case was materially different from the terms of allotment and construction by D.D.A. In that view of the matter, CIT appeals of the Tribunal correctly held that the assessee had acquired the property in question on 31st December, 2004 on which the allotment letter was issued. 6. Learned counsel ... find any indication in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal though the revenue had argued such a contention in its appeal before the Tribunal”. 10. Respectfully following the dictum of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and considering the allotment letter/date or payment of fist installment of earnest money

Lions Gate India LLP, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4970/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Bhumika Majethiya, AR (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, making an addition of Rs.7,20,38,319/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, we note that assessee has placed on record a written submission dated 02.04.2025, wherein it has opted to resolve

Dhana-Shree Developers, Mumbai vs. PCIT 27 Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

ITA 1771/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 43C

Learned PCIT passed Order, dated 09/02/2024, under Section 254 read with 263 of the Act which has been challenged by way of present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in 3 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Paragraph 2 above. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused

Medical Service Society, Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3337/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025

Bench: the tribunal.

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80

rejected the registration application as well as the application u/s 80 G of the Act. Aggrieved by the order the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

Medical Service Society, Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3336/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025

Bench: the tribunal.

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80

R.C.Energy Metering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3098/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Acountant Member & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

appellant is granted liberty, in the event of benefit under the VSVS Scheme, 2024 is not extended to it, for revival of the appeal before the Tribunal by taking appropriate steps. 4. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in open court on 04.06.2025. (SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the same therefore, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal with regard to such disallowance. 48. Before us, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue supports the orders of the AO and submits that the deduction u/s 10B of the Act should be restricted

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

Perfex Technocrats Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 172/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Balakrishnan.S., Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.172 /Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Perfex Technocrats Private Vs. Income Tax Officer Limited Ward-3(3) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan : Aaccp1426A निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 09/06/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 179

overall delay in filing the appeal is not condonable. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 3 Perfex Technocrats Private Limited 5. At the outset, the Ld.AR drawn our attention to the affidavit

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1182/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred appeal before us. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the first ... concealment of income. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 12. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. We have already considered and decided the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1179/JPR/2024 herein above, setting aside the assessment proceedings under

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1180/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

Ramesh Kumar, Jhunjhunu vs. ITO Ward-1, Jhunjhunu

ITA 1179/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred appeal before the us. Now the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the first appellate

Bhupinder Singh, Zirakpur vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 867/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 867/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Bhupinder Singh, Vs The Ito, House No. 4, Village-Singhpura, Ward 3(5), Zirakpur (Punjab). Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Dmrps2593Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 44A

Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 20.12.2023 passed for assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised two grounds of appeal, wherein

Social Networking Forum, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption, Pune

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 932/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.932/Pun/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Section 12ASection 2Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(vi)

merits of the case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.” 3 Social Networking Forum 5. Aggrieved appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal assailing the impugned order denying grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act. 6. We have heard

Sharad Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nirgudsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(5). Pune, Akurdi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.435/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sharad Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Ito, Ward-10(5), Pune. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, At Post Nirgudsar, Dist.- Pune- 412406. Pan : Aabas8790H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Sinha Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Was Not Justified In Denying The Claim Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80P Of The Act Holding That Co-Operative Banks Are Not Co-Operative Societies. The Deduction Be Allowed Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified