← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

delete the penalty and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. 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

Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 951/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

terms of provisions of Section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the appellant filed appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act on 09.09.2024, vide ITA No.951/SRT/2024 ... appellant about the order of CIT(A) about fate of appeal due to which, the delay of 147 days has occurred in filing appeal before the Tribunal. We find that assessee was not negligent but due to absence of legal advice of earlier tax consultant, there was delay in filing

Kanhiya Lal Choudhary, Todaraisingh vs. Commissioner of Incometax Appeals, Incometax Department Face Less

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

ITA 178/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 178/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kanhiya Lal Choudhary Near Bus Stand, Todaraisingh Tonk Road, 304 001 बनाम Vs. DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABAPC 0831 G अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITP राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR Thru' VC सु

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69C

reasonable cause in explaining the delay. The Bench also noted that there is further delay of 407 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. However, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted the following averment vide his affidavit. SHRI KANHAIYA LAL CHOUDHARY VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR AFFIDAVIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

appeal of the assessee by elaborately discussing the issue at great length vide his order dated 31.03.2024. Now the revenue has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds mentioned herein above. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing

Sahay Foundation, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 369/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

maintainable, without going into the merits. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that assessee-trust was supposed to file an application under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) or subsection(1) of section

Prerna Pragati Mandal, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 365/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

substantial document and the application was rejected as non-maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT

Moritha Lions Charitable Trust, Surat vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 238/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

details/explanation and genuineness of the activities of the Trust. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected

Moritha Lions Charitable Trust, Surat vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 237/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

details/explanation and genuineness of the activities of the Trust. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected

Jai Shanker Nadikuda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 319/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69ASection 80C

assessment year 2017-2018. 2 ITA.No.319/Hyd./2025 2. At the out set, there is a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment during the said period ... also filed medical certificate in support of the contention. He, accordingly, pleaded that the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is neither wilful nor wanton, but, the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. We are satisfied with the reasons furnished by the assessee

Sri Ganga Charitable Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Nitin RanderFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 80G

being carried-out by the appellant-trust. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee trust is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. CA Nitin Rander, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned CIT(E) had simply rejected the application of the appellant

The Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

ITA 118/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 80G

technical ground of not condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay

The Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

ITA 117/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 80G

technical ground of not condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay

The Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

ITA 116/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 80G

technical ground of not condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay

The Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

ITA 115/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 80G

technical ground of not condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay

The Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

ITA 114/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 80G

technical ground of not condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay

Dhatri, Secunderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1393/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 80G

10AB for registration u/sec.80G of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee trust is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned CIT(E) had simply rejected the application

Tridip Roy, Port Blair vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(4), Port Blair

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1856/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1856/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tridip Roy,…………………………………….………Appellant Diglipur North Andaman, A & N Island, Port Blair, Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Island, Pin Code No. 744 202 [Pan:Behpr1554L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-3(4), Port Blair, Aayakar Bhawan, Vip Road, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Island, Pin Code No. 744101 Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 6Th, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144Section 44ASection 68

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 63 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee

Khajiabdul Karimsab Anwar Bhasha, Chitradurga vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Davengere

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

ITA 575/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Phani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 194CSection 226(3)

dated 7 February 2025, seeking to attach his bank . SA No.38/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 account. Immediately thereafter, the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal, which resulted in a delay of 536 days. 2.5 Based on the above submission, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) contended that the delay ... filing the appeal before the Tribunal was neither deliberate nor intentional. Therefore, it was argued that the delay should be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) opposed condonation of the delay, stating that the assessee had been negligent in pursuing the appeal. 4. We have

Hipe Infrastructure Projects LLP, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1338/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

finding of the AO, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he further submitted that the AO as well as learned

Nitin Avantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

However, the CIT(A) rejected both the contentions of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO. The assessee is an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The ld. AR submitted that in assessee's case the scrutiny assessment under section