“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

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

In the result, ITA.No.178/Hyd

ITA 177/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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

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

In the result, ITA.No.178/Hyd

ITA 176/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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)

Amrit Breeder Farms Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2472/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)

dated 31.12.2019. I.T.A. No.: 2472/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amrit Breeder Farms Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2), Gangtok, Gangtok Sikkim vs. Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Gangtok Sikkim

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

ITA 1711/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Marketing Federation Limited. which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 270A of the Act, dated 29.03.2023. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting penalty u/s. 270A amounting ... result, the appeal is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 1711/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions

Kerala Catholic Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 945/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Kerala Catholic V/S. Ito Exemption, Ward 1(4), Association बिधम Mumbai Kca Bhavan, St. Francis Of Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Asis International School, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te P.L. Lokhande Marg, Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Chembur, Mumbai, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Maharashtra-400043 Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk3121E Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

mandatory requirement for claiming the benefit of accumulation of income. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. AR has submitted that the disallowance has been made only P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2017-18 Kerala Catholic Association

Apmh Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1718/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1717/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2025-26) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1718/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2025-26) Apmh Foundation D 613, Neelkanth Business Park, Nathani Road, Vidya Vihar West, Maharashtra- 400086 V/S. Cit(Exemption), Mumbai Room No. 601, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Maharashtra-400026 बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajta1880H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 10.03.2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2025-26. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) Erred In Rejecting Application In Form No. 10Ab For Renewal Of Registration Under Section 12Ab Alleging That The Application Was Made Under Section 12A (1) (Ac) (Ii) In Place Of Section 12A (1) (C) (Iii) & In The Process No Opportunity Of Making Correction In The Application Was Provided.” 3. Since Similar Issue Is Involved In The Both Appeals & Facts & Circumstances Are Same, These Are Being Disposed Of By A Common Order. Ita No. 1717/Mum/2025 Is Being Taken As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250Section 80G

rejected on this technical ground vide order dated 10.03.2025. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that while filing the application, the wrong clause was inadvertently selected. Ld. CIT(A) simply, on this

Apmh Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1717/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1717/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2025-26) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1718/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2025-26) Apmh Foundation D 613, Neelkanth Business Park, Nathani Road, Vidya Vihar West, Maharashtra- 400086 V/S. बनाम Cit(Exemption), Mumbai Room No. 601, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Maharashtra-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajta1880H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 10.03.2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2025-26. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) Erred In Rejecting Application In Form No. 10Ab For Renewal Of Registration Under Section 12Ab Alleging That The Application Was Made Under Section 12A (1) (Ac) (Ii) In Place Of Section 12A (1) (C) (Iii) & In The Process No Opportunity Of Making Correction In The Application Was Provided.” 3. Since Similar Issue Is Involved In The Both Appeals & Facts & Circumstances Are Same, These Are Being Disposed Of By A Common Order. Ita No. 1717/Mum/2025 Is Being Taken As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250Section 80G

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

vide order dated 12.03.2025, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

Nilesh Parsottambhai Javiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Junagadh

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 870/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. Sat Sole S/Ita No.870/Rjt/2024

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 144

ITA NO. 870/Rjt/2024 A.Y 17-18 Nilesh P. Javiya IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE

St Johns Society for Education, Hajipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Patna

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

ITA 671/PAT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12A

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity 2. The assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal respectively: I. I.T.A. No.: 670/PAT/2024; A.Y. 2024-25: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) has erred

St Johns Education Trust, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Patna

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

ITA 670/PAT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12A

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 42/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

holding that ITAT has confirmed disallowance @ 6% of the bogus purchases. 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 in case of the appellant, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 19/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 250Section 54F

upheld the action of AO and dismissed the ground. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper book enclosing sale agreement, bank statement and Form-26AS reflecting TDS deducted u/s 194IA

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh, Central Revenue Building vs. Semi Conductor Laboratory, Scl Ph-, Industrial Area

The appeal of the Revenue is treated as dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 522/CHANDI/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Sood, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 VIRTUAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP 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 07.03.2024 passed for assessment year

Manilal Modi Charitable Foundation, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 40/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Darshan JakhariaFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(E) in rejecting the application for regular registration, the assessee-trust is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 ITA.No.603/Hyd./2024 4. CA Darshan Jakharia, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the application of Assessee-Trust has been rejected

Naresh Bhansali, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 345/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Scheme, 2024. Considering the request of the assessee, we are dismissing this appeal as withdrawn giving liberty to the assessee to come in appeal before the Tribunal in case the issue is not resolved under VSV Scheme, 2024. Page 2 of 2 3. In the result, appeal filed

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 1Section 115JSection 14A

appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO and also the addition made to book profit. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the AO has invoked Rule

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 479/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 14A

confirmed Nuvama Wealth Management Ltd. the disallowance made by the AO and also the addition made to book profit. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the AO has invoked Rule