← 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

Manoj Kumar Patodia, West Bengal vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 2101/KOL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2006-07 dated 28.08.2025. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming a penalty ... grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The assessee stated that he has a reasonable cause for non-compliance

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur vs. D, C, I.T., Circle - 2, Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 975/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

brevity. ITA No.: 974, 975 & 2237/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 974/KOL/2024: “1. THAT on the facts of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner ... Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. 6. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of appeal were not pressed, therefore

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Jalpaiguri

ITA 974/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

2237/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 974/KOL/2024: “1. THAT on the facts of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National ... Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. 6. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of appeal were not pressed, therefore

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur vs. JCIT (TDS), Range - 6, Siliguri

ITA 2237/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

2237/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 974/KOL/2024: “1. THAT on the facts of the case, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National ... Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. 6. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of appeal were not pressed, therefore

Rmkv Fashion Garment Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Cricle-1, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 393/CHNY/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Chny/2026 & Sa No.30/Chny/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No.393/Chny/2026) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rmkv Fashion Garment Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Now Merged With Rmkv Fabrics Pvt. Vs. Tax, Ltd.), Circle-1, 176F, Trivandru Road, Tirunelveli. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Pan: Aafcr 4023G

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that if the legal contentions raised with regard to the notice

Cholamandalam Ms Risk Services Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1214/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar. RFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin, C.N., CIT
Section 143Section 195Section 263Section 9

outset, the Ld.DR for the Revenue objected to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the assessee belatedly filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of ‘332’ (three hundred & thirty two) days. According to the Ld.DR, the AO has already given effect to the impugned order ... dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5. Per contra, the Ld.AR of the assessee addressed the issue of delay in filing of this appeal before this Tribunal and tried to justify the action by pointing out that assessee doesn’t gain any advantage by not filing the appeal

Sunil Maruti Vekhande, Thane vs. ITO-2(2), Thane

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

ITA 8928/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsunil Maruti Vekhande, Vs. Ito-2(2), Dahagaon Road Dahagaon Road At Post Kalyan, Maharashtra, Vasind W, Tal Shahapur, Thane-421601. Thane-421306. Pan/Gir No: Agypv5501H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ravikant Pathak Respondent By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

For Appellant: ITA No.8928/MUM/2025/AY 2016-17
Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal” 3. There is a delay of 83 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed a condonation petition supported by a notarized affidavit and submitted that he had filed his return of income ... notices. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed a paper book containing 7 pages, which are communications from the bank as well as bank statements. These documents were

Manish Vashdev Khemchandani, Ambernath vs. Assessing Officer, Kalyan

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

ITA 8402/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethmanish Vashdev Vs. Assessing Officer, Ito Ward 2(2) Khemchandani, Kalyan, New Mansarovar Chs Ltd, B Wing. Kalyan-Dombivali-421301. Parmeshwari Villa, Flat No. 101, Near Mira Vatika, B/H Shiv Mandir Ambernath East, Thane-421501. Pan/Gir No: Ayhpk4646D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Ravi Hemnani Respondent By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 1Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 44A

said amount of Rs. 31,20,507/-, Grounds are, thus, dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the appellant has filed a paper book enclosing therein the bank statements, computation of income and other details filed before

Jaidev Vinod Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he held appeal of the assessee as liable to be dismissed

ITA 6626/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 43CSection 50CSection 53A

mind, making the order bad in law. 3. There is a delay of 169 days noted by that Registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which application for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation

Unmesh Ravindranath Fadnis, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Thane

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6589/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhramhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Bhagat, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69

thus constrained by the non- compliance at the end of the assessee dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee insisted that no investment was made by the assessee in the debentures as alleged

Institute of Orient Philosophy, Vrindavan vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6564/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial, Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant, Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Institute Of Orient Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Philosophy Of Income Tax, Raman Reti Vrindavan (Exemption) Circle, Mathura Uttar Pradesh- Ghaziabad Up 281121 Pan No. Aaat7158M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

appeal of the appellant is Allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. NFAC passed the order without accepting the addition evidences filed by the assessee

K & S Fincon Pvt Ltd, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6556/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

fresh assessment order in the direction given in the order. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee has raised the legal issue and stated that the notice dated 23-07-2022 issued

P & R Engineering Services Private Limited., New Delhi vs. Circle 19(1), Delhi, DCIT, New Delhi, India

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4537/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] P & R Engineering Service Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., 89, Lok Nayak Circle-19(1) Apartment, Rohini Courts, New Delhi S.O. Rohini Courts, North West Delhi, New Delhi- 110085. Pan-Aaccp0484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri V.K. Agarwal, Ar & Shri Hrithik Lamba, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10031831 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R. W. Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 5,62,48,491/- Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Sole Reason That The Return Of Income Was Filed Belatedly On 30.03.2019 Though The Same Has To Be Filed Upto 31.10.2018 In Terms Of The Due Date As Per Section 139(1) Of The Act. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Said Disallowance & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

confirmed the said disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming

Alfa Modern Mobiles Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Cr Building

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

ITA 5701/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Alfa Modern Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-24/2, Naraina Industrial Ward-2(1) Area, Phase-I, C.R. Building New Delhi-110028. Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaica6087C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Goel, Ca & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44ASection 46ASection 69A

vide order dated 10.10.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 280,55,000/- under Section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), New Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Beacon Higher Education Services Private Limited, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

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

ITA 2574/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Y K Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 32Section 72A

decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business System (supra). Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that that on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the same case that

Beacon Higher Education Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1867/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Y K Kapur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 32Section 72A

decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business System (supra). Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that that on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the same case that

Bhasin Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle -(4)2, New Delhi

ITA 5544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

enhancement in the lower appellate proceedings. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed the instant appeal before the tribunal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective pleadings. The first and foremost issue which arises for our apt adjudication

Bhasin Motors Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

ITA 1699/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

enhancement in the lower appellate proceedings. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed the instant appeal before the tribunal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective pleadings. The first and foremost issue which arises for our apt adjudication

Kuldip Singh, Ranchi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

merely set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the issue. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that in present case of the assessee the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) after

Manoharmal, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 619/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

dismissed.” 5. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.619/VIZ/2025 Manoharmal 6. I have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record