← 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

Jacob Thomas, Kozhencherry vs. ACIT, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 133/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 68

remand report that the appellant failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that during the course of proceedings before he CIT(A) the appellant

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As "Jrg Securities Ltd"), Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 243/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

case of Fortis hospitals Limited v. ACIT in ITA No.132/2021 (judgment dated 29th July, 2021). 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. It is contended that on account of payment of non- compete fee, the appellant company had acquired a right, which ... difference for TDS credit. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 17. Being aggrieved, the appeal is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. Grounds of appeal No.1 challenges the disallowance 10 ITA No.239/Coch/2023 & Ors. M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. of belated remittance of the employees’ contribution

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 242/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

case of Fortis hospitals Limited v. ACIT in ITA No.132/2021 (judgment dated 29th July, 2021). 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. It is contended that on account of payment of non- compete fee, the appellant company had acquired a right, which ... difference for TDS credit. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 17. Being aggrieved, the appeal is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. Grounds of appeal No.1 challenges the disallowance 10 ITA No.239/Coch/2023 & Ors. M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. of belated remittance of the employees’ contribution

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 241/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

case of Fortis hospitals Limited v. ACIT in ITA No.132/2021 (judgment dated 29th July, 2021). 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. It is contended that on account of payment of non- compete fee, the appellant company had acquired a right, which ... difference for TDS credit. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 17. Being aggrieved, the appeal is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. Grounds of appeal No.1 challenges the disallowance 10 ITA No.239/Coch/2023 & Ors. M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. of belated remittance of the employees’ contribution

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 240/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

case of Fortis hospitals Limited v. ACIT in ITA No.132/2021 (judgment dated 29th July, 2021). 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. It is contended that on account of payment of non- compete fee, the appellant company had acquired a right, which ... difference for TDS credit. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 17. Being aggrieved, the appeal is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. Grounds of appeal No.1 challenges the disallowance 10 ITA No.239/Coch/2023 & Ors. M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. of belated remittance of the employees’ contribution

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 239/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

case of Fortis hospitals Limited v. ACIT in ITA No.132/2021 (judgment dated 29th July, 2021). 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. It is contended that on account of payment of non- compete fee, the appellant company had acquired a right, which ... difference for TDS credit. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 17. Being aggrieved, the appeal is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. Grounds of appeal No.1 challenges the disallowance 10 ITA No.239/Coch/2023 & Ors. M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. of belated remittance of the employees’ contribution

Rakesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaithal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 991/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing :13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement :.14.05.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING ORDER 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 24.07.2024 passed for assessment year

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Waryam Steel Casting Private Limited, Kanganwal Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Waryam Steel Castings Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Narinder Pal Kaur, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Khanna

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

ITA 1141/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 269TSection 271E

barred by limitation, without adjudicating the matter on merits. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the grounds, emphasizing that the delay was due to genuine hardship

Narinder Pal Kaur, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Khanna

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

ITA 1138/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 269TSection 271E

barred by limitation, without adjudicating the matter on merits. 7. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the grounds, emphasizing that the delay was due to genuine hardship

Mrs. Mandeep Kaur, Rupnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Rupnagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1131/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: PER LALIET KUMAR, J.MFor Respondent: Shri Tejmohan singh, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

dismissed the appeal. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR for the assessee had drawn our attention to the bank statement of the husband, wherein all the amount have came to the account

DCIT, C-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh vs. The Institution of Civil Engineers Society, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

Kusum Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 17.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 HYBRID HEARING PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP ORDER The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)'] dated 16.12.2022 passed for assessment year

Autocomp Corporation Panse Private Limited, Pune vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

various decisions dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing

Autocomp Corporation Panse Private Limited, Pune vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2646/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

various decisions dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing

Natha Pandit Raut, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 1766/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Natha Pandit Raut Dcit, Circle 2, Pune Office No.101, Global Port Pashankar Auto Complex, Off Mumbai Vs. Bangalore Highway, Baner, Pune - 411045 Pan: Aatpr6854L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 54Section 68

Rs.1,72,44,816/- as business income. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment as completed is illegal, invalid

Mukundlal Baheti, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation

ITA 244/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Abhinav Pitta, SR-DR
Section 143(3)

outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 751 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 01.04.2025, explaining the reasons for such delay. The reasons given by the assessee

Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ncw-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 3069/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3069/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/22-C, Sahayamatha Colony, Non Corporate Ward 1, T.V.K. Nagar, Chinnalapatti Post, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 301. [Pan:Ahtpb8288M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 246 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 69A

could not furnish any documentary evidence for the source of cash deposits made during demonetization period. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 I.T.A. No.3069/Chny/24 5. The ld. AR Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A. submits that there is no prohibition to receive SBNs during demonetization period ... there is no prohibition to accept and deposit, addition cannot made. He submits that similar issue on identical facts was subject matter in appeal before this Tribunal in the case of Tamil Nadu State marketing Corporation ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No. 431/Chny/2023 dated 07.10.2024 and placing copy

Srinivasan Rajasekaran, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2914/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2914/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Srinivasan Rajasekaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 70G – 5, Seenu Complex, Ward 1, Indira Nagar, Hosur 635 109. Hosur. [Pan:Aeepr3817E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 68

source for the cash deposit, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 I.T.A. No.2914/Chny/24 5. The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate filed a paper book containing 270 pages, which includes bank statement

Samarth Surksha Rakshak Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Sanpada vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5497/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

returned income of NIL. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The points before us is in respect of eligibility of deduction claimed u/s.80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned