← 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

Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1319/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek BoobFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

availing business support services. 6. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant company is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10 ITA.No.1319/Hyd./2024 7. Shri Sashi Mathews, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned Assessing Officer/DRP was erred in confirming

Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir of Haradhan Halder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.314/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir Of Haradhan Halder.…………… ….……….Appellant 33, Banamanli Naskar Road, Kolkata – 700060. [Pan: Adypg8773F] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 14 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of such delay explaining reasons for the delay. We, after perusing the petition made in the application, satisfy that there were bona ... Officer solely on the ground of non-compliance on various notices fixed for hearing. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned order

Murarilal Murarka, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 636/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44A

order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2016. I.T.A. No.: 636/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Murarilal Murarka. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals ... appeal of the appellant is Partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the paper book and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. DR relied upon

Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

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. I.T.A. No.: 867/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14: “1. That the learned CIT discussed what the terms

Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

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. I.T.A. No.: 867/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14: “1. That the learned CIT discussed what the terms

DCIT, Circle-35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Indian Coal Agency, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

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. I.T.A. No.: 867/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14: “1. That the learned CIT discussed what the terms

Sri. Vikram Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

ITA 2170/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 144Section 54Section 90

well-versed with the law at least should have given one line in their response asking a non-resident to immediately file an appeal before the Tribunal. It has not happened. Thus, looking at the full compass of facts and situation of the assessee, we are of the view that ... assessee has also submitted a copy of the decision in ITA No.1913/Bang/2024 wherein the delay caused of around 6 years in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was condoned. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 SCR 241 (supra) has categorically held that because merely some persons obtained relief

Sai Shiv Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sai Shiv Developers Vs Acit Circle 32(1), Ground Floor, Amar Mumbai. Mahal, A.D. Road, Near Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Chandan Cinema, Juhu, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400049 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan: Aanfs2229J Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Vajani, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 28Section 44A

this, disposal vide order dated 19.07.2019, assessee electronically filed the appeal before the first appeal authority against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. While filing this appeal electronically, in Form 35 at row no. 5 ITA No. 26/Mum/2025 AY: 2013-14 Sai Shiv Developers ... signifies that the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee has been condoned. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above narrated facts which are not repeated to avoid duplicity. Admittedly, the factual position

Precel Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

disallowance. In result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee, at the outset raised preliminary objection regarding validity of the notice issued

Precel Solutioins Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

disallowance. In result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee, at the outset raised preliminary objection regarding validity of the notice issued

ACIT Cental Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5657/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agencies Rajasthan (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 109 taxmann.com 139. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 6. The ld. DR submitted that during the survey at JM Financial it was found that

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agencies Rajasthan (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 109 taxmann.com 139. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 6. The ld. DR submitted that during the survey at JM Financial it was found that

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agencies Rajasthan (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 109 taxmann.com 139. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 6. The ld. DR submitted that during the survey at JM Financial it was found that

Krn Jewelers and Bullion Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2795/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh, Manish Agarwal, Accoutant Member

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 3. Aggrieved with the said order of the Ld.NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and gone through the material on record. None is present for assessee

Radial International Mining Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT (Central), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 22Section 263

income, after giving an opportunity to the assessee in this regard.” [Emphasis has been supplied by us] 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6 Radial International Mining Services Pvt. Ltd. 6. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the PCIT has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard

Save A Family Plan (India), Kanjoor vs. DCIT(Exemption), Kochi

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

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

hearing the appellant vide order dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 138/Coch/2020 with a delay of 265 days. The said appeal came to be disposed off by this Tribunal vide order ... with the following directions: - “i. The appellant shall file the additional affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay occasioned in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks from today. ii. On receipt of the said affidavit, the Tribunal shall consider the application preferred by the appellant for condonation

Nisha Dilip Lalwani, Pune vs. The ACIT, Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 2763/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Nisha Dilip Lalwani Acit, Circle 8, Pune Sr. No.449/2, Cts No.2194/16, Vs. Kasarwadi, Pune – 411034 Pan: Acgpl5021J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishi Lodha & Divyesh Tripathi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rishi Lodha & Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the order

Mulshi Dharan Vibhag Shikshan Mandal, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2583/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandramulshi Dharan Vibhag Shikshan The Cit (Exemption), Pune Mandal Vs. At Post Male, Tal Mulashi, Dist Pune – 412108 Pan: Aactm6856C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

section 80G(5) of the Act is hereby cancelled.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT Exemption has erred

Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2582/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Dnyaneshwar Trust The Cit (Exemption), Pune At Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Dnyaneshwar Ssk Ltd., Post Vs. Bhende Sk, Newasa-Shevgaon Road Nevasa, Ahemdnagar - 414605 Pan: Aabts1962N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

section 80G(5) of the Act is hereby cancelled.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT Exemption has erred

Nilkanteshwar Serva Sevasangh, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2581/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandranilkanteshwar Serva Sevasangh The Cit (Exemption), Shivnagar, Baramati, Tal. Baramati Vs. Pune Dist. Pune – 413116 Pan: Aaatn0849A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

section 80G(5) of the Act is hereby cancelled.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT Exemption has erred