“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

Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Limited, Kochi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Circle Kochi, Kochi

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

ITA 809/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. .......... Appellant 32/2401 B Rashtradeepia Building Palarivttom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aaacj8267F] Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Tds Circle, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Respondent By: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.R

Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 274

before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record

Shree Umiya Patidar Seva Charitable Trust, Kamli, Kamli Mehsana vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the applicant trust is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year N.A.

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 115TSection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

262/Ahd/2025 Shree Umiya Patidar Seva Charitable Trust, A.Y. N.A. 11-2024. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the applicant trust filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(E) has rejected the application for renewal of Exemption u/s. 12AB

Bhargavkumar Parsottambhai Patel HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2083/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(6)

other defect noted in the filing of the appeal of there being delay of 71 days in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay, stating that the counsel of the assessee being pre-occupied with other professional matter, inadvertently

Arun Gopilal Samnani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2082/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(6)

Arun Aashray, Pune vs. CIT Central Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 73/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraarun Aashray The Cit (Exemption), 1541 Clover Highlands, Near Pune Vs. Nibm, Pisoli Road, Kondhwa, Pune – 411048 Pan: Aacta2725Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Mutha Department By : Shri Prashant Gadekar Date Of Hearing : 15-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 119Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There is a delay of 291 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, according to which the assessee ... seeking alternate remedy before the tax authorities and only when the same was rejected, the assessee was advised to file the appeal before the Tribunal. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after 2 hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing

Casp Council for Arts and Social Practice, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 411/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj C Chag (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 654 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. The Ld. Counsel ... apply for final registration. So, the assessee again applied for final registration in Form No.10AB under the said Circular instead of filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the said application on 28.03.2024 and cancellation of the provisional registration was also not restored on technical ground

Casp Council for Arts and Social Practice, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 410/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj C Chag (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Hotel Surya Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 11(1), Pune

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

ITA 396/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(2)

account, sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the notices issued by the office

Hotel Surya Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Wad-11(1), Pune

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

ITA 395/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(2)

Woman Development Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 385/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

purposes without going into the merits of the case and drawing any adverse inference against the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-compliance before

Yashotej Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 377/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.377 & 376/Pun/2025 Yashotej Foundation, Sr. No. 60, H. No. 604/4, Kondhwa (Bc), Pune-411048 Vs. Pan: Aabcy3688C अपीलार्थी / Appellant Cit (Exemption), Pune प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Vishal Ravindra Patil Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari 16-04-2025 29-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 13.12.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed On 15.06.2024 Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act"). For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) did not provide the assessee with ... first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled." 10. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The CIT (Exemption) erred in law and facts by rejecting the application and cancelling provisional registration without affording

Yashotej Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 376/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.377 & 376/Pun/2025 Yashotej Foundation, Sr. No. 60, H. No. 604/4, Kondhwa (Bc), Pune-411048 Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune Pan: Aabcy3688C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Ravindra Patil Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 13.12.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed On 15.06.2024 Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act"). For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Ravindra PatilFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) did not provide the assessee ... first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled." 10. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "1. The CIT (Exemption) erred in law and facts by rejecting the application and cancelling provisional registration without affording

Sneha Ulhas Rudrawar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2771/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

laid down in the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal are not sustainable and hence are 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 impugned issue is squarely covered in favour

Nashik Surgical Society, Nashik vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 2523/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandranashik Surgical Society The Cit (Exemption), Pinnacle Endoscopy & Diagnostic Pune Centre, Dattaraj Appt, Near Vs. Ahirrao Photo Studio, College, Nashik – 422005, Maharashtra Pan: Aabtn6522F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ravi Prakash Date Of Hearing : 28-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 3 1] The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting application filed by the appellant in Form 10AB for approval under clause

Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1552/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT

Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)

stated reasons, the registration granted to the assessee stands cancelled.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. (a) The learned CIT(E) erred on law and on facts in not granting sufficient opportunity

Nanded Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Nanded vs. ITO, Ward (1), Nanded

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

ITA 1103/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1103/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Registry informed that there is delay of 192 days in filing of the instant appeal before the Tribunal. Affidavit along with condonation application has been filed. Major reasons stated are remote location of the assessee society and also office staff ... cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay of 192 days occurred in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji

Gopal Extrusions Pvt Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jalgaon

ITA 1633/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 143(3)

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of the appellant is rejected. Ground No.7 is dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the legal grounds challenging the validity of the re-assessment

Sanvira Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 186/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Mrs. 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. Mrs. S. Sandhya, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned CIT(E) had simply rejected the application by observing

Myk Charitable Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 185/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 80G

The Adarsha Bharathi Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Kanekal vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

In the result, ITA.No.178/Hyd

ITA 178/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha Gand

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 270A(9)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 03 days in filing the above three appeals before the Tribunal. Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 03 days in filing the appeal ... condoned in the interest of justice. We are satisfied with the reasons explained by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal with 03 days delay and accordingly, we condone the delay of 03 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed