“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

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Assessee challenged this order before the CIT(A) who upheld the order of the AO and therefore the Assessee being aggrieved went in appeal before the Tribunal, who set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the AO for reexamination

Jile Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2223/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2223/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Jile Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 68, Sotai, Near Mahipal Ward-51(3), Nambardar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fzsps8684G Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Calance Software Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1441/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Calance Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 14/34 & 36, Dda Shopping Circle-5(2), Complex, Nangalraya, Delhi New Delhi-110046. Pan-Aaccc5176A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Harish Choudhary, Ca, Shri Mohit Choudhary, Ca & Mitika Choudhary, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of law, the order passed

Deepak Kumar, Gaziabad vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Deepak Kumar, Vs Acit, Ward No.2, Behta Haipur, Ncc Dit(S), Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, Jhandewala Ext., Uttar Pradesh-201102 New Delhi Pan-Cbkpp0414L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Kuashik, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 250Section 69A

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1 “That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Umar Kabir, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 314/ASR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Udit Gupta and Ankush Kohli, C.As

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating that the appeal order has been received on 5th February, 2024, and the appeal before the tribunal should have been filed within sixty days there from, but on account of medical problems the assessee had to undergo treatment at District

Al- Ansar Charitable Trust, Sri Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 149/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ishtiyaq Ahmad, C.A

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

trust. Subsequently, on coming to know of the outcome of the application for registration, the assessee immediately took necessary action to file this appeal before the Tribunal which is belatedly filed by 199 days. He has also submitted, copies of screenshots from the portal, taken on various dates to submit ... never been issued or served through this e-mail id, and such non issue has prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. 4. As such, he prayed that delay may please be condoned because the same is unintentional and there is no willful

Swami Shree Akhandanand Sagar Education and Medical Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 100/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.100/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Swami Shree Akhandanand Sagar Vs. Cit (Exemption), Education & Medical Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad Madhuvan Ashram, Ved Karada Street, Surat – 395004, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakts7546M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

approval under clause (iii) of section 80G(5) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not represent its case before

Monarch Corporation, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 725/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.725/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Monarch Corporation Deputy Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ F.P. 40, T.P. 10, Beside Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat/Assistant Vs. Kalpvrukh Garden, Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gauravpath Pal, Surat-394230 Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazfm 1036 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Hiren M. Diwan, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee is not eligible for set off of the expenses. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted a paper book including the written submission report before CIT(A), CBDT Circular No.11/2019 dated 19.06.2019, auditor report

V. M. Maniyar Exports, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 10ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate. The addition or disallowance in the assessment proceedings would not automatically lead ... under section 271(1)(c) on such disallowance. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. On the assessee’s appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee contended that no such claim was made by the assessee and that the AO had made disallowance on wrong presumption. Further

Urmilaben H Dave Disc Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 328/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154

ground of delay as well as observing that the closure of CPGRAM is not an appealable order. The assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The trustee has filed the application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal which is delayed by 104 days

Urmilaben H Dave Disc Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 327/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 326, 327 & 328/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154

Urmilaben H Dave Disc Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 326/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 326, 327 & 328/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154

Vijay Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited, Ichalkaranji vs. ITO Ward-2, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 4 ITA No.90/PUN/2025, AY 2017-18 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 305/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.305/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Karkhana Ltd., Survey No.12/2, 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot Building, Behind Bharat Petroleum Pump, Hadpasar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aahcs3018G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed U/Sec.250 By The Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred For Short As The Ld. Cit(A)) Your

For Appellant: Shri B.D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni

Section 116Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 438Section 43BSection 80Section 80I

appeal needs no further adjudication and appellant’s appeal is dismissed.” 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that he do not want to press ground No.1 raised

Navansh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

dated 30.12.2019. I.T.A. No.: 724/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Navansh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 2. For that ... result, ground no.10 is partly allowed.” 10. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 11. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. During the course

Trident Coatings Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Trident Coatings Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.1/590, Gst Road, Income Tax, Vandalur, Corporate Circle-3(1), Tamil Nadu-600 048.. Chennai [Pan: Aacct3000A]

For Appellant: S/Shri S.Sridhar & G.Tarun AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT

Section 40

year 2014-15. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 2315 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse has committed the delay on account of multiple external factors beyond its control

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan vs. Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanshta Maryadit, Bhiwandi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 988/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 12Section 143(3)Section 3Section 69ASection 69aSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Coordinate Bench of ITAT, deleted the same. Appeal of the assessee was thus allowed by ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, Department is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The first issue involved in the appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. 30,37,097/- towards claim of deduction

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbi, Mumbai vs. Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 727/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

case for earlier years, where the interest subsidy was excluded while computing the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. 7. In an appeal before the Tribunal, the issue was set aside vide order dated 16.07.2020 pertaining to the inclusion of interest subsidy for computing the book profit u/s.115JB

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 726/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 725/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: MS. Deepa Hiray (Addl. CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

case for earlier years, where the interest subsidy was excluded while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 7. In an appeal before the Tribunal, the issue was set aside vide order dated 16.07.2020 pertaining to the inclusion of interest subsidy for computing the book profit u/s. 115JB