“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

M/S Rahul Properties, Pune vs. I.T.O Ward-6(1), Pune

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

ITA 2659/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Pune21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar, DhananjayFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 259 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 which is due to the fracture ... NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 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 relying on various decisions submitted that the capital introduced by the partners of the assessee cannot

Ramkrushna Natha Agalme, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(3) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2246/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A. Makawane

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

above issue. Accordingly, the ground no. 4 of the appeal is dismissed and not allowed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notice(s) of hearing

Bhagwan Mahavir Aradhana Kendra, Nashik vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 2103/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Union for the welfare of the past and present members of such forces or their dependents.” 3 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal :- “On facts and circumstances and in law, 1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune has erred in rejecting

Yuvak Kalyan Sangh, Sindhudurg vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1149/PUN/2023[2023-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2025AY 2023-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24 Yuvak Kalyan Sangh Cit (Exemption), Pune Bijalinagar, Kankavli, Vs. Sindhudurg, Maharashtra – 416602 Pan: Aaaay1327K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE erred in rejecting the application

Infosoft Global P Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 501/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

here. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. During the course of appeal before the Tribunal ... neither against the intimation nor against the rectification order. 9. The right of appeal is a statutory right and the appeal before the Tribunal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act against the scrutiny assessment of the Ld. AO. The assessee

Islampur C S Shop 2, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur

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

ITA 2191/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 77 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since ... filed by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The main grievance of the assessee is that the revenue authorities have not considered the source of cash deposits, even though the assessee

K T Handlooms, Burdwan vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 1860/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1860/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 K.T. Handlooms,……………………..………...……Appellant R.B. Basu Sarak, Sadarghat, Burdwan-713103, West Bengal [Pan:Aaofk4187G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Bishewar Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 123 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since ... cash in hand and the balance amount of Rs.29,76,105/- as unexplained cash deposit. 7. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following issue:- “The CIT(Appeals), NFAC erred in not deleting Rs.29,76,105/- as added

Harkiran Commar, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-10, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalpr. Commissioner Of Mrs. Harkiran Commar Income Tax-10, 28, Poorvi Marg, Vs. New Delhi Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Pan: Aagpc2911C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sanjiv Chaudhary, Ca Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca & Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

after making proper enquiry and investigation on both the issues. Harkiran Commar vs. PCIT 4. Against such order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in law, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income

Style Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1021/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1021/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2014-15) Style Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit C-134, Defence Colony, Central Circle-7 New Delhi Room No. 330, Ara Centre, Pan: Aagcs5899C Jhandewalan, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Adv, Shri Anup Mehta, Ca, Sh. Ashwini Gupta, Ca &Ms.Vanshika Mehta, Adv Revenue By Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 Order

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

then A.O. and the approving authority,(which has been filed much after the granting of the approvaland at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the Judgment

Style Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1020/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

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

ITA 263/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the assessee personally appeared before the Bench and explained that he shifted to Chennai ... Both the appeals filed by the assessee (wife of Mr. Palani) are delayed by 90 days and 60 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon

Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

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

ITA 262/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Mr. Palani, Chennai vs. ITO, Cirlce(OSD)-1, Trichy

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

ITA 261/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Classic Mall Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5320/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR &

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)

present case. Appeal of the assessee was thus dismissed confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated factual position as narrated in the above paragraphs. The sole thrust of the ld. Counsel

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Infinity Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5101/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

documentary evidences placed on record which forms part of the paper book before us, deleted the addition so made. Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for the relief so granted by ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record and have

Harsha Harsh Varandani, Mumbai vs. ITO -22(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4729/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4729/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Harsha Harsh Varandani V/S. Ito-22(1)(5), Mumbai 8 Prem Udyan Society, 9Th बिधम 308, Piramal Chambers & 12Th Floor, R J Corner Lalbaugh, Parel, Road, Khar West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpn6280H Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Asoo NihalaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 250Section 68

property was submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4.3 Before us, Ld. AR has furnished a fresh affidavit dated 12.12.2024 of Shri Harsh J. Varandani, husband of the assessee wherein

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro Units, Mumbai

ITA 4713/MUM/2024[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.A. Dhyani (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Dhaval Shah &

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

INR.221,51,33,677/- + INR.75,15,85,143/-). 10. Being aggrieved, both, the Assessee as well as the Revenue had come in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record and examined the position in law in view of the submissions advanced

Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro Units, Mumbai vs. NFAC (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai)

ITA 4674/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.A. Dhyani (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Dhaval Shah &

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Otters Club, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3080/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Court of Bombay in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08, against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The moot point raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal is that assessee is an organisation of members and is therefore a mutual

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), Mumbai vs. Otters Club, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3078/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)