← 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

M/S Birla Management Centre Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1666/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 43B

been made before the due date for filing return of income as per section 43B of the Act. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted that

Narendra Khimji Savla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6567/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 69C

being issued. On merits, the CIT(A) set aside the issue back to the AO for consideration on merits. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has been regularly filing return under

Godfrey Lloyd Vaz, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5304/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pranab Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 250Section 270A

being 200% of tax on the income allegedly misrepresented by the assessee. 4. There is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the ld. AR filed application for condoning the delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record ... view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 75 days in filing

Madhurima International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4430/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 7. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 8. The Assessee has challenged the addition of INR. INR.8,10,00,000/- made

Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3090/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

view of the above, both the grounds taken by appellant are dismissed.” 3. There was a delay of 226 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee in this regard filed an application for condoning the delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record ... view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 226 days in filing

Hridaan Enterprise, Dumka vs. ITO, Dumka

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Hridaan Enterprises, I.T.O., Bhagalpur Road, Dumka. Dumka. Vs. Pan No. Aajfh 3035 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 68

from Feb, 2024 to May, 2024. Due to continuous illness, the partner was not able to arrange the documents for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee stated that the delay in filing appeal is neither Hridaan Enterprises Vs ITO intentional nor deliberate. The delay is not inordinate

Radha Govind Public Welfare Society, Ramgarh vs. Aci, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 182/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H.Chowdhury, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

that the said order 2 ITA Nos.180-182/Ran/23 of the ld. Pr.CIT,Patna passed u/s.263 of the Act was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal and the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.66/Pat/2018 has, vide an order dated 23.02.2023, quashed the order passed u/s.263

Radha Govind Public Welfare Society, Ramgarh vs. Aci, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/RAN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H.Chowdhury, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

that the said order 2 ITA Nos.180-182/Ran/23 of the ld. Pr.CIT,Patna passed u/s.263 of the Act was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal and the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.66/Pat/2018 has, vide an order dated 23.02.2023, quashed the order passed u/s.263

Radha Govind Public Welfare Society, Ramgarh vs. ACIT, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 180/RAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H.Chowdhury, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

that the said order 2 ITA Nos.180-182/Ran/23 of the ld. Pr.CIT,Patna passed u/s.263 of the Act was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal and the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.66/Pat/2018 has, vide an order dated 23.02.2023, quashed the order passed u/s.263

Jayantilal Chimanlal Reshamwala, Surat vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 489/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.489/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayantilal Chimanlal Reshamwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/2330, Doriwala, Salabatpura, Surat – Ward – 1(2)(2), 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abepr8935N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

accordingly confirmed the addition of AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the notices, though uploaded on the ITBA portal, were not received by the appellant

Hasmukhbhai Mangabhai Ahir, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 1095/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1095/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukhbhai Mangabhai Ahir, Vs. The Ito, Ahir Faliyu, At & Post – Palsana, Taluka Ward –2, - Palsana, Surat – 394317 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Brppa3017A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 50C

assessee. In the result, all grounds and appeals were dismissed by him. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that though the notices were received by the appellant, but his tax consultant

Mukesh Kumar, Jagadhri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Yamunanagar, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 688/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CA and Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 44A

Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 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 16.04.2024 passed for assessment year

Ajay Bhauso Kadam, Satara vs. ITO, Ward 2, Satara

ITA 295/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Ajay Bhauso Kadam Ito, Ward 2, Satara At Durandewadi, Post Kumthe, Satara, Vs. Dist. Satara – 415002 Pan: Cfwpk4338C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 148

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 461 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 for the assessee ... rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 461 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

Shreesomnidhi Infrasolutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 23/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

appellant remained unjustified and unsubstantiated. Hence, the Assessment Order is upheld the ground is noted as disallowed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : “1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in making addition

Rexel India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 981/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025
Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

application after due verification thereby allowing these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for statistical purposes. 5. Dissatisfied the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal of the assessee relates thereto. 6. In respect of Ground no.1 (with its sub-ground nos.1.1

Chittpavan Athavale Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 776/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrachittpavan Athavale Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Flat No.102, Nandanvan Building, Vs. Karvenagar, Pune – 411052 Pan: Aajcc3597Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Department By : Shri Ravi Prakash Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

cancelling the provisional registration granted earlier u/s 12AB of the Act. 2. There is a delay of 535 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 535 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. 3 5. We find

Rohan Leher Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2866/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2866/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sayali VipradasFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 2. Registry has information that there is delay of 305 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Application for condonation along with the affidavit has been filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay. 3. After hearing both

Rajeev Pandurang Kamat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2602/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2602/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Rajeev Pandurang Kamat, Flat No. E3 & E4 Harshada Garden Apartments, Paud Road, Mahaganesh Colony, Pune-411038 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3), Pune Pan : Abepk3431E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah Department By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-05-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ludhiana [“Addl./Jcit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) The Ld. Cpc Erred (Cit (A) In Confirming) In Denying The Benefit U/S 115Bac Of The It Act & Thereby Erred In Raising Demand Of Rs.87,160/- By Calculating The Tax Under Old Regime. 2) The Ld. Cpc Erred (Cit (A) In Confirming) In Not Appreciating The Fact That Belated Form 10Ie Was Already Filed In Ay 22-23. 3) The Ld. Cpc Erred (Cit (A) In Confirming) In Not Appreciating The Fact That Filing Form 10Ie Is Directory In Nature & Not Mandatory. 4) The Appellant Craves For To Leave, Add, Alter, Modify, Delete Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Hearing, In The Interest Of Natural Justice.” 2

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)

under old tax regime is hereby upheld and confirmed. Thus, the grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ... once filed, will apply to subsequent AY as well. 9. Challenging the denial of relief by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 10. As per section 115BAA of the Act, domestic companies have the option to рау nеw cooperate concessional tax rate @ 22% and applicable

Rama Devi Tummala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 778/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

course of the hearing.” 3. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 449 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such ... realisation that, the appeal ought to have been preferred against the order u/s.263 itself, the assessee immediately took necessary step to file appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR further submitted that, there was no mala fide intention or deliberate delay in filing the appeal and the assessee

Swapan Bhttacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 242/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2019. I.T.A. No.: 242/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Swapan Bhttacharya. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. AO, erred in law as well as in facts in passing the order ... appeal are dismissed.” 4. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. During the course of the appeal