“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 Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2792/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

vide impugned order dated 29.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT “1. That the order dated 29.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income ... gains was deleted. Stance Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 15. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order dated 29.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income

M/S Stance Consumer Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-32, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

ITA 2791/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Chuhar Singh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the above condition

ITA 531/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Cit(A). 3. That Learned Cit(A)(Nfac) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Providing Any Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard As No Notice Was Received On Email-Id Provided In Form 35 The Appeal Form Before Cita. 4. That Learned Cit(A)(Nfac) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Additions Of Rs. 2,43,60,035/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unaccounted Cash Credit.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

deposits either before the Assessing Officer or during appellate proceedings. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessment was completed without proper opportunity and that the assessee

Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Shimla vs. DCIT Circle Shimla, Shimla

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

ITA 412/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the learned CIT(A). It is noted that two appeals were filed—one in physical form and another electronically. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on the ground of non-prosecution and subsequently dismissed the electronically filed appeal treating the same as infructuous, without adjudicating the issues on merits.5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 80C

same as infructuous, without adjudicating the issues on merits. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed two appellate orders

Khushi, Jalgaon vs. Ward 1, Oifhdwoied

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as ‘withdrawn’

ITA 394/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: the Tribunal (ITAT). The relevant portion of the said application is reproduced herein below :-

For Appellant: KhushiFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia

withdraw the above captioned appeal on the ground that appeal was filed only to understand the recent procedural changes in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal (ITAT). The relevant portion of the said application is reproduced herein below :- “It is further respectfully submitted that pursuant to the recent procedural

Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole, Beed vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(ix)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2

afresh by the Assessing Officer. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is set aside.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. THE CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SHI vs. Hakti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Punevs.Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2816/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.V. IyerFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)

Rs.73,14,914/- is hereby sustained and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “On the facts and in law – “1. The Hon. CIT Appeals (NFAC) has erred in confirming

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2806/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

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: I. ITA No.: 2803/KOL/2025: “1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong ... confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.” 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 in the course

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2804/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2803/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

Santhosh Abraham, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3950/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3950/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & S.A. No. 137/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 3950/Chny/2025] Shri Santhosh Abraham, The Income Tax Officer, 21, Morrison 2Nd Street, Vs. Ward 1, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. Kancheepuram. Pan: Aijpa 0742L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Sai Sathiyabama, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri N.Sai Sathiyabama, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 274

Rs.2,57,631/- is confirmed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA confirming the penalty imposed, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised read as follows:- a. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department failed to consider the fact that

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7421/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

hearing of Appeal.” 2. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that, there is a delay of 79 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application dated 17/11/2025 seeking condonation of delay wherein it is stated as under:- ***This space is left blank intentionally. P.t.o ... prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 79 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The assessee, an individual

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015–16 and 2016–17 are allowed

ITA 4157/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Unilever India Dcit Central Exports Limited, Circle-5(2), Unilever House, B. D. Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Sawant Marg, Floor, Kautilya Chakala, Andheri Bhawan, C-41 To C- East, Sahar P & T 43, G Block, Bandra Colony, S. O. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 099 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaaci0991D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarphekara/W Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Shreyas Sardesai, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 254

TNMM) was adopted as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM), and transfer pricing adjustments were computed accordingly. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 31 March 2023, the co-ordinate Bench upheld the selection of External Transactional Net Margin Method (external TNMM

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

order. Pursuant to the said directions, final assessment order was passed determining total loss at Rs.3,38,09,095/-. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We take up the grounds seriatim as reproduced above. Ground no.1 with its sub-grounds from 1.1 to 1.5 are in respect

Md Educational Society, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6422/DEL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

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

Section 10Section 154Section 2Section 250

addition to Rs. 6,95,940/- , after allowing the claim of expenditure incurred against the receipts. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 | P a g e 6422_DEL_2025_MD Education Society 4. Before us, Ld. AR has argued that the incorrect selection of option

M/S C.P. & Associates(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 5(2), Delhi

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

ITA 6379/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee. 4. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.06.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee had requested for adjournment in response to notices issued

Aman Sharma, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 6366/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

delay had been shown by the assessee and hence the delay was not condoned. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have considered the facts and circumstances as submitted by the assessee in the grounds of appeal and heard the Ld. DR . We note

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Rv Cafe Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby, dismissed

ITA 6363/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

period, assessment should have been made u/s 153C of the Act. Aggrieved, with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances

Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(1), Delhi vs. Hema Arora, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6324/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69A

considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 30.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7

Zeta Buildtech Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3449/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in 2 filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 on 08.01.2021 declaring total income