“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

Saswat Retails Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 16/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 16/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 278 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 inclined to condone the delay since

Kazi Zainal Absar, Asansol vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Asansol

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

ITA 348/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 40

section 194C and 194-I were not applicable. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard, the paper book filed and the submissions made have been examined. During the course of appeal, it was submitted

B.R. Construction, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2534/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. a.) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. A.O. failed to understand

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.786/Kol/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2008-2009) Essel Mining & Industries Vs Addl. Cit, Range-5, Kolkata Limited, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street,Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aaace6607L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Akkaldudhwewala, Fca राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal After The Hon'Ble Calcutta High Court Vide Order Dated 17.11.2021 Passed In The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed U/S 260A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Ia No. Ga/1/2017 (Old No. Ga/247/2017) In Ita 5/274/2017 Referred The Issue Back To The Tribunal For Fresh Consideration To Decide The Legal Issue In The Light Of Decision By Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Saurashtra Cements Ltd. (2010) 325 Itr 422 (Sc) After Affording Both The Sides A Fair & Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing. The Hon'Ble High Court Directed The Tribunal To Decide Whether Compensation Received By The Assessee From Suzlon Energy Limited On Account Of Failure Of Performance Guarantee Parameters Of The Capital Assets Namely Wind Turbine Generators, Was On Revenue Account For Reducing Loss Incurred In The Course Of Business Or A Capital Receipt Outside The Purview Of Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri AkkalDudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR

Section 260ASection 43

with a further direction to reduce the same from the value of the capital asset. The Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal was allowed. The sheet anchor of the argument submitted ... case was accepted. With regard to the 10% of the amount which was directed to be restricted, the assessee was not an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the findings recorded by the CIT (A) examined the settlement which was executed between the assessee and the UK Company

Muthusamy Ramasamy, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 462/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 462/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Muthusamy Ramasamy, The Income Tax Officer, No.103, Balaji Nagar, Vs. Ward 1, Machuvadi, Pudukkottai. Pudukkottai – 622 022. Pan: Ashpr 2368B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Subramanian, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR stated that assessee is a wholesale dealer of Vodafone prepaid SIM cards and recharge in e-mode in the district

Mudigundam Srinivasamurthy Manjunath, Mysuru vs. DCIT Circle- 1(1) and Tps, Mysuru

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

ITA 2295/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

medical records have been placed on file. In view of the above, the learned AR prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and decide the issue on merit of the case. On the other hand, the land learned DR did not raise any objection

Talk to Me, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1372/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 11Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

application under subclause (iv) instead of subclause (iii). 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It has been submitted that no show cause or opportunity was given before rejecting the assessee's application

Mantra Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6273/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

this amount while completing the assessment. Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition so made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made in this respect before the authorities below. He also pointed out that

ACIT Circle-24(1), Piramal Chamber vs. Raiees Yasin Lashkaria, Andheri West

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5457/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4450/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5457/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

thereby allowing part relief to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ground No. 1: Addition of Rs. 1,14,28,026/- on a/c of undisclosed sales. 7.1 Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the only

ACIT, Circle 24(1) Mubai, Mumbai vs. Raiees Yasin Lashkaria, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4450/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1683/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.1684/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Cit, Shri Harjeet Singh Central Circle-31, House No.22, Mandkola Teh. New Delhi. Vs. Hathin, Faridabad Haryana-121001. Pan: Bpips2997Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.153/Del/2022 Arising Out Of Ita No.153/Del/2021 Assessment Year 2013-14 C.O. No.154/Del/2022 Arising Out Of Ita No.154/Del/2021 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Harjeet Singh Dy. Cit, House No.22, Central Circle-31, Mandkola Teh. Hathin, Vs. New Delhi. Faridabad Haryana-121001. Pan: Bpips2997Q (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 69A

additions made were deleted 4 ITA No.1684/Del/2021 & Ors. DCIT Vs. Harjeet Singh by Ld. CIT(A). Against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT

Ranee Narah, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

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

ITA 84/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69

order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.12.2018. I.T.A. No.: 84/GTY/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ranee Narah. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, the Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is not based on correct facts

Surya Electromech Privet Limited, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 262/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.262/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Income Tax Officer, Suryaelectromech Private Limited, Vs. Ward 2, Plot No.33, Gidc, Sector No.8, Gandhidham Gujrat Gandhidham 370201 370201

For Appellant: ShriChetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 250

citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted thatassessee was not aware of passing of order by Ld. CIT(A), which was served online. When assessee checked

Shardha Devi, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Patna

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

ITA 411/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 45Section 48

merits of the case, has only exacerbated the financial hardships in terms of bearing legal expenses and appeal fees in preferring second appeal before the Tribunal. It may be duly noted that the appellant is an old lady who is a widow and 65 per cent physically handicapped

Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 845/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bijayananda Pruseth & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 84, Sainath Society, At-Maandavi Ward - 1, Ta-Mandavi, Surat-394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amppp2266C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dalzin Madan, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 253(3)Section 271A

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 CIT(A) passed the order on 21.12.2023 and against the said order, appeal should ... accepted the findings of the AO and dismissed appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No.1 of the appeal is regarding addition on issue other than the issue mentioned in notice u/s 143(2) for which

Liju Jose, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 175/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Prasanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)Section 69

vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved by the order the CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The learned AR of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal

The Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 170/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

short] dated 03.08.2023 for the assessment years 2018-2019. 2. There is a delay of 508 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant filed a condonation petition along with an Affidavit of the Secretary of the appellant, stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of this ... careful perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit, I am satisfied that there is reasonable cause in belated filing of this appeal before the Tribunal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The appellant

The Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 169/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

short] dated 29.10.2024 for the assessment years 2017-2018. 2. There is a delay of 55 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant filed a condonation petition along with an Affidavit of the Secretary of the appellant, stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of this ... careful perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit, I am satisfied that there is reasonable cause in belated filing of this appeal before the Tribunal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 ITA No.169/Coch/2025

Prof. Rajendra Singh Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru and ITO (Exemption), Ujjain

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

ITA 417/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: S/Sh. Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, ARs

Section 10Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 250

appellant is therefore dismissed. 7. In the result, for statistical purpose, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 9. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. In course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that written submissions

Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Mohali, Mohali vs. Daljit Singh Bassi, Mohali

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL 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 27.05.2024 passed for assessment year