← 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

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

A.Y.2016-17. ITA No.1164/Hyd/2024: 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 632 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay ... Mattam of the Trust. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, prayed for the condonation of the delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative

Asst. Director of It (Exemp)-II, Hyderabad vs. Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (Aware), Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/HYD/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

file of the Ld. AO. Against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order in ITA Nos.10 & 12/Hyd/2001 dated 07.10.2002, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the addition ... year under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed cross-objections (“C.O.”). The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are as under : “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both

Power Security Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-5(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2943/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2943/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 154Section 250

limitation u/s. 149 are debatable issues that cannot be rectified u/s. 144 of the Act. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S. Buhari Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2449/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2449/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Buhari Hotels & Motels Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.6, Gandhi Irwin Road, Corporate Circe 1(2), Egmore, Chennai. Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaecb 4681M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sujaya, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Sujaya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 250

appeal is dismissed as infructuous.” 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal by the FAA as infructuous, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that in the second appeal filed before FAA (as against reassessment order), assessee had contented the very assessability of LTCG

S S I Media India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-20(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2346/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2346/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. V.Balaji, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 32

details by the assessee will not constitute a change of opinion. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance on merits. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The Ld. AR submitted that grounds No.2.1 to 2.3 pertain to the legal contention

Umamaheswari, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2033/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the assessee

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8693/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Though, the assessee went in further appeal before the Tribunal, however, no additional relief was given to the assessee. Be that as it may, based on the additions sustained at the appellate stage, the A.O. initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging furnishing

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8692/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Though, the assessee went in further appeal before the Tribunal, however, no additional relief was given to the assessee. Be that as it may, based on the additions sustained at the appellate stage, the A.O. initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging furnishing

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Netech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8691/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Though, the assessee went in further appeal before the Tribunal, however, no additional relief was given to the assessee. Be that as it may, based on the additions sustained at the appellate stage, the A.O. initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging furnishing

Rasila Lalitkumar Cholera, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7544/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

sustained. Hence, the appeal on Grounds 1 to 6 is dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.” 4. The Ld. AR submitted that, Assessee had purchased the shares of SVC Resources Limited through the market and had sold the shares

Dattatray Vithoba Sawant, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-42(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6081/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10(14)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 3Section 80CSection 80G

assessee, passed an ex parte order upholding the reassessment proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee raised legal issue vide Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 challenging the validity of the notice issued

Dilip Bhanwerlal Dangi (HUF), Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6008/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

assessee, upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that, the entire transactions relating to purchase as well as sale of shares of Radford Global

Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5049/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

same penalty proceedings and were heard together, they are being disposed of by this common consolidated order. Condonation of Delay 2. The present appeal before the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 81 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining that the order

Shweta Aggarwal, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

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

ITA 8455/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalshweta Aggarwal (Proprietor) Income Tax Officer, 516/34, Rakesh Nagar, Ward-1, Rohtak. Janta Colony, Vs. S.O., Rohtak-124001. Haryana. Pan-Angpa4133R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Akhilesh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 250

also, the assessee has not come forward to dispute the order of the ld. CIT(A). However, when the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal, it seems that he is vigilant to represent her case before the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make

Prateek Joshi, Ujjain vs. DCIT Central Circle-19, Delhi

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

ITA 6571/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

order dated 27-01- 2025 dismissed the appeal ex-parte. 6.Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that no notice received to the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Mahaveera Rice World (Now Known As Mahavira Rice World LLP), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 46(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6419/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

existent entity. However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 24.07.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has been raising the issue regarding validity of proceedings on a non-existent entity before

Sudhir Gandhi, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal is restored to the file

ITA 4596/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial, Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant, Member

Section 271A

dated 28-05-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal of the assessee against the quantum has already been allowed

Max Square Ltd, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(1)(5), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4100/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Max Square Ltd. Vs Ito L-12, Max Tower, Sector-16-B Ward-5(1)(5) Gautam Budha Nagar Noida Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Aagcn5808G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Bhalla, Ca & Shri Nitin Kumar Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2020-21/10308419 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 07.12.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief Acts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estates Development & Started Construction Of Commercial Complex Project “Max Square” At Sector 129, Noida. The Assessee Borrowed Funds From Indusind Bank Amounting To Inr 29.45 Crores For The Construction & Further Raised Funds Through Issue Of Equity/Ccd’S. The Funds Which Remained Un-Utilized, Were Invested Temporary In Fdrs From Which Interest Was Received Of Inr 63,77,502/- & Was Credited To The Cost Of Construction. However, The Ao Has Held The Same As Taxable Under The Head “Income From Other Sources”.

Section 143(3)Section 250

made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition

Sandeep Kapur, Gurugram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2866/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3Section 69A

order dated 26-02-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee has raised the legal issue and stated that the notice dated 29-07-2022 issued

M/S Fairdeal Information Technology Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Delhi

In the result all the three grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2793/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Fairdeal Information Income Tax Officer, Technology Private Limited, Ward-9(1), 116A, First Floor, Somdutt Vs. New Delhi. Chamber-1, 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aaacf9581G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Department By Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

shares owned by assessee by holding the same as unexplained cash credit. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “That the order dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called