“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

Boda Ramasatyanarayana, Draksharamam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kakinada

ITA 532/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

record. 11. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact apparent from the record that the assessee had delayed the filing the present appeal before the Tribunal by 918 days. Before proceeding any further, I deem it apposite to refer to the conduct of the assessee with respect to his Income

Abhimanyu Gupta, Patiala vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Patiala, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

cash payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- represented undisclosed income. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that the addition is purely based on "borrowed information" extracted from the computers of third parties

Mahinder Kaur, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 937/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahinder Kaur, The Ito, Village-Manak Pur Devi, Vs Panchkula. Post Office-Pinjore, Tehsil-Kalka,Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bgnpm2629H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Date of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 15.07.2024 passed for assessment year

Arun Kumar, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 1074/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148ASection 69A

discharge the onus cast upon the assessee under the Act. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the bank account with Jammu & Kashmir Bank was duly reflected

DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Mani Ram Balwant Rai HUF, Civil Lines

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1043/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 28Section 69C

granted the relief to the assessee and therefore the Revenue, being aggrieved by the relief granted, is in appeal before the Tribunal, and the assessee has filed the present Cross Objection. 4. In the C.O the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Worthy CIT (A-5), Ludhiana

Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 591/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

well on merits issues against the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties and gone through the available material on record. The assessee

Income Tax Office Ward 3(3) Pune, Pune vs. Ramesh Magaramji Muleva, Pune

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

ITA 3120/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 251Section 69

submit all the documents and supporting evidence called for in the course of set aside assessment proceedings.” 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment

Jhv Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 1289/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated 27.03.2024 under section ... Year: 2014-15 JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. Adhunik Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1069/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 26.03.2024. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee

Jamballi Shivappa, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2140/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, A.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit dated 5.11.2025 in original sworn before the notary public stating the reasons ... appeal belatedly before us. We are also of the consideration that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 7865/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: adverting to the merits, it is necessary to record that Ground No. 1 raised in the cross-objection was expressly stated to be not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the cross-objection is dismissed as not pressed. The adjudication hereinafter is, therefore, confined exclusively to Ground No. 2 of the cross- objection, which pertains to the allowability of interest expenditure under section 57 of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, th

Section 143(3)Section 57

Commissioner (Appeals), who disposed of the same vide order dated 31.08.2010. Being aggrieved, both the assessee and the Department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 7726 and 7498/Mum/2010. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 26.04.2013, partly allowed the appeals and restored, inter alia, the issue

ACIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bnp Paribas India Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5688/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

several judicial precedents, ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee, treating these software expenses as revenue in nature. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the relief so granted at the first appellate stage. 4. Contention of the assessee are summarized as under

Blue Chip Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5616/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalblue Chip Financial Services Vs Income Tax, Circle 12(1)(3) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 24, Dheeraj Heritage, 3Rd Floor, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 S.V. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054 Pan: (Aaacb2087R) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt, Ca Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078465141(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “A) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Of The Alleged Unaccounted Money In The Form Of Accommodation Entry From Shell Company M/S Anubhav Commosale Pvt Ltd To The Extent Of Rs 20,00,055/- Treating It As Unexplained Income U/S 68 Of It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Against this 5 Blue Chip Financial Services Private Limited AY 2012-13 balance sustenance of Rs. 20,00,055/-, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. For this remaining amount of Rs. 20,00,055/- which has been added in the hands of the assessee, we perused the order

Abdurrehman Shamsulhaq Bapu, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4479/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144C(2)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

taking into account detailed explanations and submissions made by the assessee. For this balance sustenance of the addition so made, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Abdurrehman Shamsulhaq Bapu AY 2016-17 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that – i. Sustaining addition

Rajesh Sahu, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Nfau

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Rajesh Sahu, Vs. Assessing Officer, H. No. 2A, Sahu Lane, New Delhi Phase-2, Ashok Vihar, Gurgaon Pan: Avaps9917M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

after making requisite enquiries and proper verificati on with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Daulat Ram, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari (Jao), Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Daulat Ram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Anu Jain & Co., First Rewari (Jao) Floor, Near Palika Complex, Model Town, Rewari Pan: Avppr6711D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Monoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Hanumant Construction Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 550/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.545, 546, 547, 548, 549 & 550/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Hanumant Construction Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Parwani Complex, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aabch7062D

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

order. 3. At the very outset, it is noted that in each of the year, there is delay of 384 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. That explaining the said delay, the assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated 27.09.2025. The relevant paras of the said affidavit executed

Hanumant Construction Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 549/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Hanumant Construction Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 548/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Hanumant Construction Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 547/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR