“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

Pokharna Educational Trust, Shirur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 44/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 80G

grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law 1. That the order ... Tribunal to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). In the meantime, on the basis of CBDT Circular, the assessee filed another appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that since the order of the Tribunal setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) is still pending

Pokharna Educational Trust, Shirur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 43/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 80G

Sanjay Mohanlal Bafna, Pune vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 2868/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 270A

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 49 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. After considering the contents of the condonation

Sachin Dilip Agrawal, Jalgaon vs. DCIT Cir 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2218/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 63 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. After considering the contents of the condonation ... filed by the assessee being barred by limitation. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other 3 On facts

Rockfield Mining Minerals Private Limited, Siuri vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1024/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Dey. Commissioner (Appeals) Was Disposed Of By Order Dated 02Nd May 2024 Passed By Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). 2. That The Time For Filing Of The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was To Expire On 01St August 2023. 2 Rockfield Mining Minerals Private Limited 3. That The Attorney Of The Assessee Company Mr. Kalyan Bose Was Physically Aged & Unwell Thus Due To Unavoidable Medical Emergencies The Appeal Could Not Be Filed. 4. That The Memo Of Appeal Has Been Filed On 06Th May 2024 In The Office Of The Tribunal.” 1.1 Considering The Reasons Given, The Delay Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 270A

Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 02nd May 2024 passed by Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 01st August 2023. 2 Rockfield Mining Minerals Private Limited 3. That the Attorney of the Assessee company Mr. KALYAN

Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:3102/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, The Income Tax Officer, 8/66, Thangavel Illam, Cauvery R.S., Vs. Ward 1, Pallipalayam, Erode 638 007. Tiruchengode. [Pan: Asxps2629A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 4 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

made on account of unexplained credits under section 69A of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that this is the assessee’s first year of operation in this business and forced

Sri. Gurappa Jayaram Reddy(AOP), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle -1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Surya Tejas, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

been quantified. Considering the request of the assessee, we are dismissing this appeal as withdrawn giving liberty to the 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

Sameeksha Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as being not maintainable

ITA 816/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 816/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) M/S. Sameeksha Trust V/S. Ito(Exemptions)-2(1), 320/321, A-Z Industrial बिधम Mumbai Estate, G.K. Marg, Lower 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Parel, Mumbai-400013 Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaats0581L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Shri MandarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 249(1)Section 250

once again with a request for condonation of delay.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 05.02.2025 after a delay of 2263 days. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Sameeksha Trust 6. At the outset

Sulochana Suresh Mankumare, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 810/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 142(1)Section 148

presumption that form 3 is issued and appeal is withdrawn. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4 ITA 810/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 Sulochana Suresh Mankumare 4. The Ld.AR at the outset submitted that, the assessee has filed present appeal before ... Subsequently, assessee’s brother expired and thus the assessee could not take cognizance of the appellate proceedings, causing delay in filling the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR prayed that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice, as assessee has made out sufficient read cost that

Mega Venture Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 424/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 424/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Mega Venture Developers V/S. Acit-5(2)(2), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd. बिधम Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, 110, Vashani Chambers 47, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi New Marine Lines, Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecm7883L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 250

reasonable explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2013-14 Mega Venture Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has explained that the notices and the order of Ld. CIT(A) which were sent on the email

The Maharashtra Mantralaya Shasakiy Karmachari Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai/, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 342/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) The Maharashtra V/S. Ito, Ward 25(2)(1), Mantralaya Shaskiy बनाम Mumbai Karmachari Co-Op Credit Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Society Ltd. Maharashtra-400051 Aamdar Niwas Back Side, Ground Floor, Opp. Aakashwani Bhawan, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat8908R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Dnyanesh Patade a/wFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is a cooperative credit society established in the year 1929 and has been claiming deduction

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 246/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 247/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Raju Mohan Gurnani V/S. Ito, Central Circle 5(2) बिधम Flat No. 2101, Moraj Casa Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Grande, Plot No. 57, Sector Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 17, Koperkhairne Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-410209 East, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpg9103B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

same was partly upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts in this case are that the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C was completed on 29.03.2017 determining total income

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 247/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Madhusudan Mukund Kalyankar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Thane

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

ITA 187/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 187/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Madhusudan Mukund V/S. Ito, Ward, 1(2), Thane Kalyankar बिधम 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 5/603, Garden Enclave, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Vasant Vihar, Pokharan Estate, Thane(W)-400604 Road No. 2, Thane (W)-400610 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Acppk0083L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Smt Vidhi SolaniFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 11.11.2024. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Grounds No. 1 & 2 relate to the exparte decision of the Ld. CIT(A) without affording appropriate opportunity to the assessee

Shree Jewel House Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(30(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1007/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1007/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Shree Jewel House Pvt. V/S. Ito Ward 4(3)(3), Mumbai Ltd. बिधम Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, 303, Kakad Market, 3Rd Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 306 Kalbadevi Maharishi Karve Road, Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapcs0590M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

made, the appeal was dismissed exparte vide order dated 29.01.2024. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, it has been submitted by the Ld. AR that for the reasons explained in the affidavit for condonation of delay

Credit Guarntee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)_1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5834/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the CIT(A) against the aforesaid Assessment Order which was dismissed, vide order dated 30/09/2024. Now, being aggrieved the Assessee-trust has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 250

against the aforesaid Assessment Order which was dismissed, vide order dated 30/09/2024. Now, being aggrieved the Assessee-trust has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that issues identical

ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Arvind Velji Gada, Mumbai

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

ITA 2026/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arvind Velji Gada, Ito Ward 41(1)(1), 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, Near Vs. 420, Bhavani Shankar Road, Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Dadar (West) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400028. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ito Ward 41(1)(1), Arvind Velji Gada, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue 3, 1704 12Th Floor, Bellezza Tower, 420, Vs. Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West) Bandra East, Mumbai-400028. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aespg 4212 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R Singh/

Section 68

appeal before aggrieved both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before aggrieved both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. ay of raising grounds as reproduced above. ay of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. Before

Arvind Velji Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1582/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R Singh/

Section 68

Faiyaz Ahmed, Gauripur vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhubri

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

ITA 268/GTY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

Faiyaz Ahmed. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.03.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without allowing proper opportunity