← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sikar vs. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Sikar

ITA 1544/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 250

year is better than last year, therefore, on this account also no addition is justified. Being aggrieved, the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld. D/R supported the order of the AO by placing reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay

Jayant Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 5 Sangli, Sangli

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

ITA 2873/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Umeshkumar Madhukar MaliFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 3Section 69A

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 221 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 ... grounds of appeal. 4. The appeal is dismissed.” 4 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land

Dana Anand India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Akurdi, Pune

ITA 1571/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37Section 37(1)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 80ASection 80G

order u/s 154 of the Act deleting certain additions. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, I. Disallowance of Deduction

M/S. Seth B D Goyal Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. Ward - 1(3), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 2267/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

dated 30.11.2021. I.T.A. No.: 2267/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Seth B D Goyal Charitable Trust. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1 For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal even when ... result, the appeal is disallowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard, the paper book filed and the submissions made have been examined. As regards the delay in filing the appeal

Shri Palash Kumar Kapas, Howrah vs. ACIT, Cir. 47, Kolkata

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

ITA 1419/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250Section 68

dated 18.12.2019. I.T.A. No.: 1419/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Palash Kumar Kapas. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 2. For that

Tikota Cooperative Credit Society Niyamit, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1853/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80P

arise as raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal. 3. Aggrieved from the Order of the learned CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and learned Counsel submitted that the reopening made

Subramania Sreenivasa Ganeshanatha, Ruwi vs. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 916/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C. (Virtually Present)For Respondent: 02.04.2025
Section 10(38)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO. 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. 3. The ld. Authorized Representative ... said AY. The CIT(A) deleted the addition considering the issue on merits against which the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal while considering impugned issue in AY 2017-18 in assessee’s case (supra) has held that 7. On perusal

ACIT-4 2 1, Mumbai vs. Aspect Superstructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 140/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 68

respect of addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). Hence, both the parties are in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The assessee was earlier known as KBJ Developers Ltd. It is engaged in real estate business of constructing and selling residential

Aspect Superstructures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5947/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 68

respect of addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). Hence, both the parties are in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The assessee was earlier known as KBJ Developers Ltd. It is engaged in real estate business of constructing and selling residential

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rajendra Sawaleram Rahane, Sangamner, Maharashtra

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in case of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 5668/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshike, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

statement of third parties without there being any kind of independent linkage of such material with the assessees. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. DR supported the order of ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that documents seized from the search premises is evident

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Ranjit Rajaram Hande, Solapur

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in case of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 5621/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshike, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

statement of third parties without there being any kind of independent linkage of such material with the assessees. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. DR supported the order of ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that documents seized from the search premises is evident

M/S Fluor Danier India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2696/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit, Vs Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-4, (Earlier Known As Ritika New Delhi Pvt.Ltd.), B-38, Sagar Apartment, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabcr5510N Appellant Respondent

Section 1

charges by holding the same as genuine expenses. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeals:- 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,68,33,866/- on account ... account of cash deposit during demonization period is reduced to INR 2,39,99,886/-. 32. Against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds of appeal are taken:- ITA No.2696/Del/2023 & Others 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

Ebenezer Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Konch, Jalaun vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 71/AGR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

treat the appeal as invalid." 2.2. Further, it was submitted by the ld. AR that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The details of which are reproduced as under:- Sl A.Y. Date of Date of Due date of Appeal filed Delay No order ... under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act do not granted the exemption admissible. 4. Further, the assessee has filed identical grounds of appeal before the Tribunal for all the above assessment years which is reproduced as under:- 1) That the order passed by CIT(A) NFAC is against

Ebenezer Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Konch, Jalaun vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 70/AGR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

treat the appeal as invalid." 2.2. Further, it was submitted by the ld. AR that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The details of which are reproduced as under:- Sl A.Y. Date of Date of Due date of Appeal filed Delay No order ... under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act do not granted the exemption admissible. 4. Further, the assessee has filed identical grounds of appeal before the Tribunal for all the above assessment years which is reproduced as under:- 1) That the order passed by CIT(A) NFAC is against

Ebenezer Shiksha Prasar Samiti, 1, New Patel Nagar, Konch, Jalaun, Konch S.O (Jalaun) vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 69/AGR/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

treat the appeal as invalid." 2.2. Further, it was submitted by the ld. AR that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The details of which are reproduced as under:- Sl A.Y. Date of Date of Due date of Appeal filed Delay No order ... under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act do not granted the exemption admissible. 4. Further, the assessee has filed identical grounds of appeal before the Tribunal for all the above assessment years which is reproduced as under:- 1) That the order passed by CIT(A) NFAC is against

Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO WD-2(1)(5), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/RJT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 68

stage. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. (i) During the course of hearing the Ld. AR has submitted that an addition of Rs.86

Sidhi Welfare Society, Patna vs. CIT Exemption, Patna

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

ITA 341/PAT/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

dated 02.08.2023. Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 341/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Sidhi Welfare Society. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the order dated ... also cancelled. Aggrieved with the cancellation order for provisional approval and rejection of the grant of approval for registration, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the order

Ms. Shree Waheguru Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Ring Road, Surat vs. PCIT, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-Tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcs 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 263

after granting reasonable and sufficient opportunities of being heard to assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.PCIT, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed a paper book containing of 264 pages including submission to Ld.PCIT and details filed before AO and Ld.PCIT

Runi Impex, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(2), Surat

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

ITA 220/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.220/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Runi Impex Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 32, Madhav Kung Society, Vs. Tax Circle-3(2), Surat, Aaykar Dabholi Road, Surat-395 004 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aamfr 2340 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

Runi Impex from SEZ. He accordingly, dismissed the ground of appeal. Further, aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld.AR of the assessee filed paper book containing 328 pages. The appellant has also submitted affidavit of Ms. Keval Vanani

Bharatiya Barood Udhyog, Nagpur vs. DCIT JCIT Circle 2, Nagpur

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

ITA 293/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Bench that in the event of Department’s decision is not acceptable to the assessee, the assessee be granted liberty to file fresh appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative has no objection in the submissions of the assessee. 4. I have heard the arguments of the parties, perused