← 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

Md. Babar Ali, Malda vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Malda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3175/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 18.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 3173/KOL/2025: “1. Order Bad in Law: That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated ... result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

Md. Babar Ali, Malda vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Malda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 18.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 3173/KOL/2025: “1. Order Bad in Law: That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated ... result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

Md. Babar Ali, Malda vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Malda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 18.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 3173/KOL/2025: “1. Order Bad in Law: That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated ... result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

Narayan Barter Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12 dated 09.10.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, unjust ... result, the appellant's appeal is Partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance

Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

ITA 1783/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar grounds of appeal have been raised

Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1782/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar grounds of appeal have been raised ... Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Exide Industries. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1781/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar grounds of appeal have been raised ... Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Exide Industries. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1780/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar grounds of appeal have been raised ... Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Exide Industries. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 1779/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar grounds of appeal have been raised ... Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Exide Industries. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

ITA 1778/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 244ASection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar grounds of appeal have been raised

Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years i

ITA 1777/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar grounds of appeal have been raised ... Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Exide Industries. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 1776/KOL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar grounds of appeal have been raised ... Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Exide Industries. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

School of Engiering and Applied Sciences, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7518/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ab)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

pursuance to the notice sent on four dates as mentioned in Para 8.1 of the impugned order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts in selecting the present

Gaurav Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

ITA 4456/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal K Jaitely, Adv. & Sh. SudhirFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 153DSection 69A

assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties at length and perused their respective submissions along with all the case files. 5. The learned

Gaurav Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

ITA 4455/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal K Jaitely, Adv. & Sh. SudhirFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 153DSection 69A

assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties at length and perused their respective submissions along with all the case files. 5. The learned

Gaurav Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8 Delhi, Delhi

ITA 4454/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal K Jaitely, Adv. & Sh. SudhirFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 153DSection 69A

assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties at length and perused their respective submissions along with all the case files. 5. The learned

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Goverdhan Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 4731/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv., Sh. Pranshu SinghalFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

addition of Rs.30.42 lacs, against the total addition made of Rs.666.00 lacs made u./s.68 of the Act. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the only issue in this case is the addition on account of share

Harbhol Singh, Sunam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 788/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.788/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harbhol Singh Ito H. No. 863, Village – Sheron, Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax बनाम/ Vs. Suman Road, Sunam Officer, Ward Sunam, Sangrur District : Sangrur Punjab - 148028 Punjab - 148028 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cssps-9948-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Dt. 16/05/2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In The Present Appeal Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Ld. Sr. DR
Section 148

that the AO had provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities ignored vital evidence, including the Tehsildar

Manoj Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44 (6) New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 164/DEL/2026[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2026

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

vide his order dated 11-12-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his order as under: 8. It is seen that all these arguments were taken

Mall Hotel Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5063/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who had passed the original appellate order on 18.01.2017 against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 27.05.2019, Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench set-aside the assessment and directed the Ld. AO to pass a fresh assessment order ... assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the following grounds have been raised which are discussed as under: 4. Ground No. 1: Disallowance of power and fuel expenses