← 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

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 13(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2577/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2577 & 2578/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 बनाम Lg Electronics India Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Vs. A-26/4, Mohan Cooperative C. R. Building, Industrial Area Estate, Mathura I. P. Estate, Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl1745Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

third party vendors under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal, who allowed part relief for statistical purposes by remitting some of the issues to the Assessing officer. The Assessing officer levied penalties

M/S. Junior Chamber International, Ranchi vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Ranchi

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 33/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 12A

time of final hearing." 2. From perusal of record, we find that there is a delay of 36 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the appellant has filed application for condonation of delay. In the condonation application, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant ... revenue submitted that no plausible explanation was mentioned by the ld. AR of the assessee for the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency at this stage. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused

Rajesh Kumar Bhadani, Gaya vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2), Gaya

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

ITA 704/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing ex-parte order and sustaining

Preservation and Proliferation of Rural Resources and Nature, Gaya vs. Deputy Commissioner, Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 496/PAT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

dated 20.06.2024, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order passed by Id JCIT(A) is unjust, unwarranted

Jai Hind Traders, Kochi vs. ITO, Non-Corp Ward 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 921/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 250

opted for VSVS 2024, we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn with the liberty to the assessee to revive appeal before the Tribunal, if the declaration filed comes to be rejected for any reason whatsoever. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2) Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Jaipur vs. Pankaj Jain, Jaipur

In the result, the above appeals of the Revenue are dismissed”

ITA 1035/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Against Cestat Order. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Without Appreciating The Fact That The Department Has Filed An Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Rajasthan High Court In The Case Of Assessee’S Wife Ms. Sonal Jain Vide Appeal No. Ita 20/2024, Ita 24 To 26/2024, Which Is Still Pending.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

appeal has been filed within the stipulated time frame, making the CESTAT order final. 3. Being aggrieved, the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the ld. D/R supported the order of the AO and furnished paper book received from the AO. 4 Pankaj Jain, Jaipur

Rajinder Singh, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer, Shimla

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 233/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri V.K.Gulati, Advocate and Ms. Muskan Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56

Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 22.01.2024 passed for assessment year

Ahmednagarzilha Parishad Servants Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahilyanagar

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

ITA 2786/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Ahmednagar Zilha Parishad Servant’S Ito, Ward – 1, Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. Ahilyanagar Vs. Tilak Road, Opp. Wadia Park, Ahilyanagar – 414001 Pan: Aaaja0362K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prasad S Bhandari (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S Bhandari (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 184 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 order passed ... Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. After hearing both sides, we find despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices for which

Natharam Panaji Choudhary, Pune vs. I.T.O. Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1825/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1825/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Natharam Panaji Choudhary, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1), S. No. 15/2, Gulve Vasti, Pune Indriyani Nagar, S.O., Pune City, Pune-411026 Pan : Aezpc2060D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A Makawane
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

raising the grounds on merits that the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in Law, Ld. CIT(A). CIT(A) erred

Mahanagar Realty, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

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

ITA 1004/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

enquiries on the issue related to the computation of closing WIP. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that although full details were given before the Ld. PCIT regarding

Employees Provident Fund Organisation Staff Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1366/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Employees Provident Fund Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward –4(1), Organisation Staff Hyderabad. Co-Op Society Ltd., Barkatpura, Hyderabad. Pan : Aaaae1453C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate. Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 80P

time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved a petition seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The learned Authorised Representative

Dwaraka Pershad Radhey Ramanlal, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1134/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA C SureshFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Rs.49,93,339/- by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, CA C. Suresh, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer has erred in rejecting

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 409/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Deputy Commissioner Limited Vs. Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-8(1) [Pan: Aaacd7999Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Ar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/04/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234C

provisions of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The first issue that came up for consideration from ground No.3 and 4 of the assessee’s appeal is validity of reopening of assessment

Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Benglauru, Bengaluru vs. Unitedlex India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As I-Runway India Private Limited), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1243/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

virtue of Article 15 of the Indo US treaty. 31. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. Learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the invoices

Meelendra Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 923/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Motiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Rs.1,83,00,637 - Rs.64,74,147 (employee expenses)) = Rs 5,91,325.” 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the material

Sushil Rajbanshi Gupta, Bhandup West Mumbai vs. Ward 41(4)(4), Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Mumbai

ITA 1121/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

compliant with, therefore, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21/08/2024. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal which is delayed by 110 days. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee appearing before us explained the facts and circumstances delaying to the filing ... file the present appeal.” 6. In view of above, we hold that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 110 days in filing the present appeal is condoned in view of the provision contained

Savita Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6839/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6839/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Savita Co-Operative V/S. Income Tax Ward Housing Society बिधम 27(3)(1), Mumbai Limited. Station Tower, Vashi, Navi Plot No. 86, Opp Tilak Mumbai 400703 Road, Ghatkopar 400077 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagas5959R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 250

Devi Tool Engineers Pvt Ld.. 24/12/2024. Aggrieved with the order of Ld.CIT(A) the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is a co-operative housing society and had entered into a redevelopment agreement (along with its members) with

Sri Devi Tool Engineers Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6822/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6822/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Sri Devi Tool Engineers V/S. Asst. Director Of Income Private Ltd. Tax, Cpc A 61, Nandjyot Industrial Est, Andheri, Kurla Road Safed, Sakinaka S.O. 400072 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1 48/2, बनाम Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Karnataka 560100 Bengaluru, स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs6211N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Fenil Bhatt राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 29/10/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2020-21. Page 2

For Appellant: Shri. Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 23Section 250Section 37Section 43B

Tool Engineers Pvt Ld. allowed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No.1: Disallowance u/s.43B 4. Before us Ld. AR has made detailed submissions with regard the issues involved i.e. disallowance of B/f expenditure

Mohammed Fakhre Alam Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

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

ITA 6513/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Mohammed Fakhre Alam The Assessing Officer, Shaikh, Ward-17(2)(3), New Usmaniya Washing, Vs. Mumbai. Noor Mansion, 111, Janjikar Street, Crawford Market, Mumbai-400003. Pan : Bhops3293R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana
Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO and hence, the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was occupying a shed illegally in the land proposed to be developed by M/s. Neel

Anirudh A Damani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

ITA 6173/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal on the ground reproduced in Paragraph 2 above.

For Appellant: Shri Nihar H. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salukhe
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 192ASection 250Section 28Section 40

challenging the aforesaid addition was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 03/10/2024. As a result, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. 4. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record