“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

Manarkattu Theatres P Ltd, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

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

ITA 224/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69C

hereby sustained on merits.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned has filed a brief written submission in support of its grounds. The learned AR submitted that the AO and the CIT(A) have not considered

Julius Ruben, Kochi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 219/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 40A(3)

capital expenditure also. 3 ITA No.219/Coch/2025. Sri.Julius Ruben. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised read as follow:- “1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as these

The Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, Kollam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kollam

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

ITA 918/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

capital. The assessment order was challenged before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dated 12.09.2010 confirmed the disallowance. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.2012 in ITA No. 685/Coch/2010 for AY 2007-08 deleted the addition on account of royalty and notional interest

Nizar, Thodupuzha vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Thodupuzha/

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

ITA 825/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44A

ground of appeal is thus, partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. None was present on behalf of the assessee. However, the Bench Clerk had contacted the concerned AR, who stated that the assessee

Sh. Povinder Singh Oujla, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1332/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1332/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Povinder Singh Oujla, The Acit, House No. 89 & 90, Vs (International Taxation), Partap Colony Road,Kartar Nagar, Circle – Chandigarh, Sargodha Colony, Model Gram, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Awnpa9586C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca & Shri Hunny Bajaj, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CA and Shri Hunny Bajaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 20.08.2019 passed for assessment year

DCIT Exmp Circle Pune, Swargate Pmt Bldg vs. Ashirwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 225/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 5

does not require any adjudication. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 7. It is this order against which the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Exmp Circle Pune, Swargate Pmt Bldg vs. Ashriwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 224/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 5

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Prabha Farms Private Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1748/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) IT Act. The assessee preferred first appeal against quantum addition and when it was dismissed assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of 3 C.O. No.07/PUN/2025 Rs.77,24,199/-. Assessee preferred first ... vide order dated 22.03.2017 and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was deleted. The Revenue filed second appeal before the Tribunal against the deletion of penalty. Vide order date 27.02.2020, the Tribunal restored the issue of quantum to the Assessing Officer as well as vide order

Kandakatla Sudershan Reddy (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 330/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

outset it is seen that, there is a delay of 178 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the Karta of the assessee ... provide adequate documentary evidence in support of the claim. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee was in regular receipt of rental income from house property. In support of their

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 648/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

vide it’s order dated 13.10.2023. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The first issue that came-up for our consideration from ground no.2 of Revenue’s appeal is disallowance of depreciation on non-compete ... Assessing Officer towards expense relatable to exempt income. 33. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 34. Shri B Balakrishna, learned CIT-DR submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing

Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 563/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

vide it's order dated 13.10.2023. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.2 of Revenue's appeal is disallowance of depreciation on non-compete

Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1273/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

outset, it is noted that there was a delay of nine days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with a duly sworn affidavit explaining the reason ITA No.1273/Hyd/2024 2 for the delay. The learned Authorised Representative

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 654/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

vide it's order dated 13.10.2023. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The first issue that came-up for our consideration from ground no.2 of Revenue's appeal is disallowance of depreciation on non-compete

Vertex Offshore Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dict, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 204/HYD/2021[ 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

total income of the appellant company. 6. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the appellant company are general in nature and the Learned Counsel for the Assessee

Ahamed Ulla Khan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144b(8)Section 147Section 148Section 68

response of the e notices and he confirmed the Order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the notice issued by the learned Page 3 of 4 CIT(A) was in the name of previous auditor email

Sreenivasulu Sagaleti, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

obligations from municipal counsel, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Page 4 of 16 7. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that the assessee initiated construction work starting with applying

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Chetan Pravin Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2100/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

Nos.2100 & 2101/MUM/2025/AYs.2009-10 & 2010-11 Chetan Pravin Chitalia 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of AO. She submitted that the case of revenue right from the beginning

Himanshu Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2) Range-11, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5658/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064936602(1) order dated 16.05.2024. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that there is a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application for Condonation of Delay supporting with his Affidavit stating therein that the delay was occurred ... reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that asssessee filed return of income on 29.12.2021, declaring total income of Rs.4,40,550/-. The case

Bright Enterprises Private Limited Mbd House, Gulab Bhawan Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1) New Delhi, Jao DCIT 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

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

directed to delete Excess penalty. Consequently, Grounds of appeal of appellant are Partly Allowed.” 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. As regards issue of non-mentioning of specific charge on the assessment order is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued and drew our attention