← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2662/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2662, 2663 & 2664/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Income Tax, New No. 35 To 41, Old No. 28, Central Circle 2(1), Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai 600 007. [Pan:Adypa1209N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

Appellant and tax the same as business income of the Appellant. 9. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer in deeming the said unexplained investments

Sameera Estate Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. Pr. CIT, Central Circle -1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2488/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 263

consider the two loan creditors since the assessee had not filed the details. As against the said order, the assessee filed this appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 217 days. 3. The assessee had explained that the delay has been occurred since the assessee was under the impression ... details for all the aspects and even beyond the concerned assessment year, and therefore the tax consultant advised the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal by challenging the section 263 order of the PCIT. Therefore the delay of 217 days was occurred which is neither wilful nor wanted

Cisco Commerce India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1261/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Parth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

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

Shri Rajendra M. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(3) (11), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

learned CIT(A) confirmed both the additions in all the three years and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee initially purchased shares of M/s Radford Global Ltd. on preferential allotment. Other three shares mentioned in the table were purchased

Shri Rajendra M. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(3) (11), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 774/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

learned CIT(A) confirmed both the additions in all the three years and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee initially purchased shares of M/s Radford Global Ltd. on preferential allotment. Other three shares mentioned in the table were purchased

Shri Rajendra M. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(3) (1), Mumbai

ITA 773/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 10(38)Section 68

learned CIT(A) confirmed both the additions in all the three years and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee initially purchased shares of M/s Radford Global Ltd. on preferential allotment. Other three shares mentioned in the table were purchased

Sri Annapurna Rice Mill, East Godavari Dist vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 123/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Annapurna Rice Mill, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Mandapeta. Income Tax, Pan: Abefs8434K Circle-1, Kakinada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt. A. Aruna ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt. A. ArunaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

order ex-parte and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Co Op Thrift Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 122/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.122/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Coop Thrift Society Ltd, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacas9620H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt A Aruna For Shri Gvn Hari ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt A Aruna for Shri GVN HariFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234FSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

receipts are exempt from tax on principle of mutuality. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Good Shepherd Monastery Society, Kottayam vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kottayam

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

ITA 212/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Good Shepherd Monastery Society .......... Appellant Kmc/No. Ix/319, St. Joseph Covent Junction Railway Station Roax, Kottayam 696001 [Pan: Aaatg8477F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Kottayam

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice

Shahnavas Pariyangadu Muhammed, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

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

ITA 207/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shahnavas Pariyangadu Muhammed .......... Appellant 1/10, Subi Villa, Pazhabalacode Alathur, Palakkad 678544 [Pan: Biaps8360Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Palakkad .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.10.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Not Filed Regular Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2014-15. However, As Per The Information Received Through Multiyear Nms Cases In Aims Module The Ao Found That The Assessee Was Involved In Certain Financial Transactions During Fy 2013-14. Therefore The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 29.03.2021. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

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. When the appeal was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice

Atholi Vanitha Co-Operative Society Ltd, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 206/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Atholi Vanitha Co-Operative Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Atholi, Koyilandy, Kozhikode 673315 [Pan: Aacaa8777F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 2(1), Kozhikode .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 80P

filed before the CIT(A). who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice

St Josephs Church Neduvaloor, Neduvaloor vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kannur

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

ITA 205/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer (“the AO”). 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the matter was called upon, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. Therefore, I proceed

Mammalassery Mor Michael Jacobite Syrian Christian Church Trust, Ramamangalam vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 1 (1), Kochi

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

ITA 204/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Mammalassery Mor Michael Jacobite .......... Appellant Syrin Christain Church Trust Church Junction, Ramamangalam Mammalessery, Muvattupuzha 686663 [Pan: Aagtm4862L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward - 1(1), Kochi

For Appellant: Shri Ranjit R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

action of the AO stating that registration u/s. 12AA was not renewed before the due date. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee had filed an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption

Cannanore Pharma, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannnur

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

ITA 195/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Sreehari A.C., CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)

short] dated 27.10.2022 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. There is a delay of 49 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant filed a condonation petition along with an Affidavit of the Managing Partner of the appellant firm, stating therein the reasons for the belated filing ... 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.195/Coch/2025. Cannanore

Feroze Gani, Aluva vs. ITO, Kochi

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

ITA 194/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Jameskutty Antony, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144C(13)Section 148

final assessment order was passed on 10th January, 2025 after making addition of Rs.37,27,802. 5. Being aggrieved, an appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. It is submitted that the appellant had produced evidence in support of the cost of improvement undertaken

Saithu Muhamed, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward -5, Palakkad

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

ITA 167/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Padmanathan K.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)

explanation of the appellant in support of the source of cash deposits was not acceptable. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal, in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises

Suma Ayirampallil Chandrangathan, Paippad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 159/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Suma Ayirampallil Chandrangathan .......... Appellant Mohanalayam, Pallikachira, Vellappally Paippad, Changanassery 686537 [Pan: Aejpc1720J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 282(1)

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the impugned order

Narakal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No E91, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 995/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR & Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 80PSection 8O

hereinafter). The relevant assessment years are (AYs) 2013-14 to 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 477 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. It is stated ... condonation petition that the assessee had given relevant papers 2 ITA No.992-995/Coch/2024. Narakal SCB Limited for filing appeal before the Tribunal and the Tax Consultant had forwarded Form No.36 also after preparation to the assessee. The assessee was under the bonafide belief that the appeals were already filed

Narakal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No E91, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 994/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR & Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 80PSection 8O

hereinafter). The relevant assessment years are (AYs) 2013-14 to 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 477 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. It is stated ... condonation petition that the assessee had given relevant papers 2 ITA No.992-995/Coch/2024. Narakal SCB Limited for filing appeal before the Tribunal and the Tax Consultant had forwarded Form No.36 also after preparation to the assessee. The assessee was under the bonafide belief that the appeals were already filed

Narakal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No E91, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 993/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR & Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 80PSection 8O

hereinafter). The relevant assessment years are (AYs) 2013-14 to 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 477 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. It is stated ... condonation petition that the assessee had given relevant papers 2 ITA No.992-995/Coch/2024. Narakal SCB Limited for filing appeal before the Tribunal and the Tax Consultant had forwarded Form No.36 also after preparation to the assessee. The assessee was under the bonafide belief that the appeals were already filed