← 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

Cosmos Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2570/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandracosmos Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune 269/270, Cosmos Heights, Near Vs. Omkareshwar Temple, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaaac2045E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze (Virtual) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Vaze (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

left with no alternative but to reject the application.” 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 basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner

Swati Balasahebpukale, Pune vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Pune

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

ITA 2093/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 69A

modify / delete / amend all / any of the grounds of appeal. 3. There is a delay of 257 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Ld. Counsel ... rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 257 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is also an admitted fact that the notice of hearing from the office of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was communicated

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ingenerie Technologies Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 837/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS Hema Murali Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

during the course of survey as unexplained money. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground nos.2 to 4 of Revenue’s appeal is deletion of addition ... said argument does not hold good for the simple reason that, assessee neither challenged the issue by filing any cross-objection or appeal before the Tribunal. In absence of any ground before us challenging the issue of validity of notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act, in our considered view

Kisan, Nizamabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

assessee upholding the reason given by the Ld. AO. 13. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted before us that, the assessee had collected the SBNs during demonetisation period which were properly recorded by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Gautaman, Chennai

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

ITA 2753/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2753/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajamanickam Gautam, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vs. No.65, Old No.46, Chennai. Defence Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Apgpg 6055G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 45(3)

held that impugned land is agricultural land. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Department has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- 1. That the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on the facts, the merits of the case

Neere Bailur Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha N, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 and Tps, Udupi, Karnataka

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

ITA 1518/BANG/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2025

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

support of grounds of appeal. He therefore confirmed the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a co-operative society carrying on the activity of providing credit facility

Prasanth Sunil Kumar Bohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 6725/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 2303/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 274Section 69

afford opportunity to the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transaction. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee at the outset raised a preliminary ground that the objection raised by the appellant

Prasanth Sunil Kumar Bohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 6725/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 2302/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 274Section 69

afford opportunity to the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transaction. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee at the outset raised a preliminary ground that the objection raised by the appellant

Classic Mall Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrisaktijit Dey, Vice-And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Classic Mall Development Company Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle – 6(2)(1), C/O Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Ground Floor, R. R. Hosiery Building, Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mahalaxmi - 400011 Pan/Gir No: Aaccc7309K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025

Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 270A

learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that the CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 07.01.2025. The appeal before this Tribunal was required to be filed on 31.03.2025. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 01.04.2025. The delay ... reasons stated above, appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that similar issue was involved in appellant own case for the immediate proceeding for AY.2016-17. The AO has made

Adroit Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Churchgate

In the result, the appeal as well the stay application of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 6288/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Neera SawantFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. In respect of Ground No. 1, which pertains to the disallowance of the employee’s contribution to PF/ESI paid

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

Thus, the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer were sustained by ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above stated facts which are not repeated to avoid duplicity. Per contra

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

Thus, the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer were sustained by ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above stated facts which are not repeated to avoid duplicity. Per contra

ITO--1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Aspect Enterprises Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Ironman Real Estate & Construction Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2299/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ito-1(2)(1), M/S Aspect Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 536, 5Th Floor, (Earlier Known As Ironman Real Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Estate & Construction Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. Godown, Floor-5, Plot-66, Kbj Plaza Shaikh Memon Street, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadci 8434 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Mr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

loss returned by the assessee. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. M/s Aspect Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 3 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed

ITO Ward - 28(4), New Delhi vs. Renu Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5155/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.5155/िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2015-16) Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(4), R. No. 1211, E-2 Block, 12Th Floor, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Civic Center, Jln Marg, Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Renu Gupta, R/O. B-393, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025 ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Afupg-6910-N Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, Chartered Accountant Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenueis Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 05.03.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) In Deleting Addition Of Rs.1,30,83,424/-Made By Assessing Officer (Ao) Disallowing Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption Of Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) U/S. 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

assessee 3 challenged the addition before CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed assessee’s appeal. The Revenue carried the issue in further appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 5204/Del/2019. The Tribunal vide order dated 06.04.2021 confirmed the order of CIT(A) and dismissed appeal of the Revenue. The reasons ... were identified including the shares of Eins Eductech Ltd. 6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against findings of the First Appellate Authority in deleting addition of Rs.1,30,83,424/- alleged to be bogus LTCG entry provided

Shyamjikrushna Varma Township, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 264/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 46A

have adequate knowledge to handle the taxation matters. However, the assessee whenever, he got the order physically, he immediately took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal. There was also mistake committed by the tax consultant of the assessee, therefore the assessee should not be penalized on account of mistake

Manmohanbhai Jamnadas Domadiya, Junagadh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Junagadh

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

ITA 252/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.252/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rachit Gajera, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250

email-id registered with the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the assessee whenever, he got the order physically, he immediately took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal. Besides, there was mistake committed by the advocate that the password was also not available with the concerned person and therefore the assessee

Vinodbhai Ravjibhai Sakhiya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.182/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vinod Ravjibhai Sakhiya, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Shivam, 4-Radha Nagar, B/H. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360 004 Bhavan, Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Blqps 0262 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250

responsible to file the return of income) forgot to send it to the chartered accountant of the assessee, (who was responsible to file appeal before the Tribunal). However, when the relevant papers were reached to the chartered accountant, who was responsible to file the appeal, before the Tribunal, has also ... appeal. This way, both the Tax consultants of the assessee, committed the mistake, which has resulted into such a delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Counsel stated that because of the mistake of the tax consultant, the assessee should not be penalized and therefore such delay

Chitravad Sayunkta Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited, Junagadh vs. Income Tax Officer, Veraval, Junagadh

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

ITA 180/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.180/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chitravad Sayunkta Vividh Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, बनाम/ Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Veraval, Junagadh-362 265 Vs Ltd. Vill. Chitravad, Taluka- Gir, Junagadh-362 150 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaac 3619 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 147Section 250

assessee. Therefore, the assessee whenever, he got the order physically, he ITA NO. 180/Rjt/2025 A.Y 18-19 CSVKSM.Ltd. immediately took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal. Besides, there was mistake committed by the tax consultant of the assessee and therefore the assessee should not be penalized on account

Rajadhani Jewellers, Wayanad vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kalpetta

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

ITA 260/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 250

hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2018-2019. 2. There is a delay of 25 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay supported by an affidavit stating therein the reason for belated filing of the appeal. 2 ITA No.260

Kandalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No2166, Alappuzha vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

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

ITA 234/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

hereinafter “the Act”) The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018. 2. There is a delay of 371 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee co-operative bank. The reasons