← 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

Pkp Hotels Private Limited, Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 1197/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1197/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pkp Hotels Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of No.69, Adhiyaman Bye Pass Road, Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Circle-1, Tamil Nadu-636 701. Hosur. [Pan: Aagcp0732P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056586224(1) Dated 27.09.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013- 14. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged Order U/S. 250 Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessee. 3. It has been noted that there is a delay of 161 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the primary reason for the delay is the sudden departure of its accounts and finance personnel

Late S. Yogarathinam, Rep. by L/H Y. Shanmuga Durai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 122Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 47

chargeable capital gain arising from that transaction….” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue preferred an appeal at Chennai Tribunal. After perusal of the submission made by the both parties the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee by dismissing the revenue ... holding as under in TCA No.234 of 2018 dated 08.07.2020. “….23. The Revenue, being aggrieved by such an order, filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also did not consider the matter in a proper perspective and the discussion is only in paragraphs14 and 15 of the impugned order