“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

M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt Ltd., Maharastra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri K C Thaker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

companies from whom the share capital was claimed to have been received. Further, the PCIT noted that since the Department has filed appeal before the Tribunal in the matter, which is pending adjudication therefore, there is no restriction on Blueray Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst. Year

Cooper Corporation Private Limited, Satara vs. National Eassessment Centre, Not Known

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

ITA 212/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Satara Circle, Satara M60-1, Nariman House, Additional Vs. Midc, Vijay Nagar, Gojegaon B.O., Satara – 415004 Pan: Aaacc9687J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 35

accepted.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee has obtained the Form No.3CL issued by the DSIR on 16.12.2022, copy of which is placed

Sai Baba Bhakta Mandal, Nandurbar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 133/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Avinash R GhundiyalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

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

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 13 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved separate condonation applications for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavits have been filed along with the applications stating therein ... Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The O/o the learned Respondent has acted in avoidable undue haste in rejecting the application of the Appellant. Although

Sai Baba Bhakta Mandal, Nandurbar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 132/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Avinash R GhundiyalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna vs. Nishatbegum Syed Baba Rasool Patel, Parbhani

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1351/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward – 1, Jalna Nishatbegum Syed Baba Rasool Patel Patel Show Company, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parbhani – 431401 Pan: Abxpp9642B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 133A(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69C

same are hereby allowed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding that additional

Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented by Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 50, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 963/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy Represented By Limited Guardian Suvajit Roy.............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan:Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy ……………………………..............................……….……Appellant Block Ac-155, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Adlpr2179P] Vs. Dcit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

also the reasons responsible I.T.A. No.963/Kol/2024, I.T.A. No.314/Kol/2017&I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Ranjan Roy for delayed filing of the appeal before the Tribunal which are extracted as under: “1. Your petitioner is the Limited Guardian of the Assessee herein and is also hisson and has been appointed ... assessee were not sufficient according to the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee moved to the Tribunal and during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the ld. PCIT again invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 vide order dated 21.03.2014 again setting aside the assessment and directing the Assessing Officer

Sri Snehasish Bhaumik, Kolkata vs. PCIT-17, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

said order on 16.10.2020 and appellate order was passed on 31.10.2023. The counsel of the assessee submitted that the said order was appealed before the Tribunal on 21.12.2023. It was only then the assessee was advised by the present Counsel Shri Soumitra Choudhury, advocate to file the appeal against ... appealed before the first appellate authority on 16.01.2020 and finally, the appellate order came to be passed on 31.10.2023. The assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal on 21.12.2023, against the said appellate order. It is only then the assessee was advised by the Counsel Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate

Jyoti Ranjan Roy(Limited Guaredian -Suvajit Roy), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/KOL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

Jyoti Ranjan Roy, Kolkata vs. ACIT, (I.T.) Cir.-50, Kolkata

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

ITA 314/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 263Section 68

vehemently submitted before us the details or factual aspects of the matter and also the reasons responsible 2 for delayed filing of the appeal before the Tribunal which are extracted as under: “1. Your petitioner is the Limited Guardian of the Assessee herein and is also hisson and has been ... assessee were not sufficient according to the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee moved to the Tribunal and during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the ld. PCIT again invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 vide order dated 21.03.2014 again setting aside the assessment and directing the Assessing Officer

Ram Rama Products Pvc Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 37

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. The CIT(A) on further appeal confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). 4. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings made an alternate

Sharma Shikshan Sanstha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Exemption, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 636/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Himself By Stating That The Grounds Do Not Present Coherent, Substantiated Or Arguable Points Of Law Or Fact.”

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 11Section 143(1)

preferred by the Assessee before CIT(A) challenging the same was dismissed vide order, dated 29/11/2024. Therefore, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative ... fresh appeal with proper narration of facts and grounds of appeal. Instead of filing the fresh appeal, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, in order to meet ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated, 29/11/2024 passed

Saffron Art Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -8(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 526/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, Sr. DR

Section 250

there is no provision under the Act to carry forward the tax deducted from one AY to another AY. 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 assessee for the year

Sys Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Thane

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 401/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

meager expenditure is shown on objects, the satisfaction about the genuineness of activities could not be arrived at.” 3. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that

Mega Freight Movers Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 1585/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit AgrawalFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 19/02/2025. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 7. We have heard both the sides and have perused

Vasant N. Barabde, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vasant Nagorao Barabde Vs Dcit Circle 27(3), 602, Sanskar Santi Park, Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Income Tax Officer, Vashi Mumbai 400088 Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai 400703 Pan: Acmpb3211G Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Appeal No: Nfac/2017- 18/10041561 Dated 23.08.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 08.03.201 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 By Treating The Market Value Of The Paa Agreement Registered On 21.09.2017 As Taxable Income U/S 56(2)(X) Being Value Of Property For Which No Consideration Is Paid. 2. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 In The Hands Of The Assessee Instead Of Treating The Same As Exempt In The Hands Ashwini Barabde The Daughter Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

their returns. He thus, sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assesse is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 ITA No. 5372/Mum/2024 AY 2018-19 Vasant Nagorao Barabde 6. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above stated facts

Sanjay S Seksaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Matru Mandir

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4399/MUM/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 250Section 68

also recorded that as per the AIR Information the cash deposited by the assessee is Rs. 77,91,770/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The ld. AR submitted that the source for the cash deposited into the bank account

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.(Formerly Known As Vodafone Digilink Ltd Which Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4189/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Vodafone Income Tax, Circle 26(2), Digilink Ltd Which Stands Vs. New Delhi Amalgamated With Vodafone Mobile (Jurisdiction Realigned From Service Limited) Circle 17(1), New Delhi) C-48, Phase-Ii, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110020. Pan No. Aaaca 3202 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194HSection 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

with respect to discount to prepaid distributor and disallowances of depreciation on provision for asset restoration costs obligation. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 3. With respect to ground No.1 of the appeal the Ld. counsel for the assessee ... under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 5.2. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has carried the issue in appeal before this Tribunal. 5.3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5.4. It emerges that identical issue had come up for consideration before the Mumbai Bench

Shri Bhusan Kumar, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 298/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 282Section 69A

existence of any such order. Later on the matter has been handed over to his son Raghav Arora, C.A. who has filed this appeal before the Tribunal and he took some time to search out the old papers and filed this appeal which belatedly filed by 67 days. As such

Shri Becharbhai Dharamshibhai Vasoya, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 125/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mehta, AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT was not appealable before this Tribunal since they were not advised by their Tax Consultants about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised them to file an appeal ... reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 508 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the Id. Counsel for the assessee, gives me an impression of existence of mitigating

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

directed AO to grant reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book containing 142 pages, which includes the replies