“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

Manu Garg & Sons (HUF), Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ghaziabad

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4454/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramanu Garg & Sons (Huf) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 67 Navyug Market, Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, Uttar Hapur Chungi Pradesh 201001 Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh – 201002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarpg6588N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal,, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

appellant is granted liberty in the event the benefit under the VSVS Scheme 2024, is not extended to it for revival of the appeal before the Tribunal by making appropriate application. 3. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2025 (Naveen Chandra) JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

vide order dated 31.03.2024, dismissed the appeals of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1- BECAUSE, the search operation cannot be said to have validly initiated on 30/03/2021 in the case

Sivan Chandran, Palakkad vs. The ITO Ward 5, Palakkad

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

ITA 172/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sivan Chandran .......... Appellant Panniperunthala, Kuttippallam P.O. Chittur, Palakkad 678014 [Pan: Ajzpc2703J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678014

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharys 118 ITR 461. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that

Iqbal, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

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

ITA 64/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Iqbal V. Ito-3(2) C/O Sanjay Saxena Hardoi 12, Pratap Enclave Bisrat G.T. Road Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Aefpi2064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Saxena, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Saxena, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 56(2)(vii)

hearing. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that due to an oversight by the assessee’s staff, the receipt of impugned order of the NFAC

Ravi Kant Sharma, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (3), Bareilly

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

ITA 62/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Kant Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 45, Athayen Faridpur Bareilly Athana Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bcfps0514M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

hearing of appeal. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that due to delay by the assessee in forwarding the relevant papers for filing the appeal, the appeal

Ashish Kumar Jain, Sitapur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur

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

ITA 60/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar Jain V. The Dcit Prop. M/S Ashish Engineering Works Sitapur Nai Basti, Kotwali Road Mahmudabad, Sitapur Tan/Pan:Aispj2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 69A

During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 21.01.2025 for condonation of delay, stating therein that the order dated 15.07.2024 of the NFAC was served

Dharamveer, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officer, Pilibhit

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 57/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dharamveer V. Income Tax Officer R/O Mohalla Bakhtawar Lal Ward 2(4) Barah Patthar Chauraha Pilibhit-1 Tehsil Bisalpur Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Amvpd5162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Veerender Kumar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Veerender Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 647 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 28.01.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the assessee was residing

Athletic Studio Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 56/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Athletic Studio V. The Dcit/Acit-1 Private Limited Lucknow 11-Cp/2, Ring Road Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalca7841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

reasons relied upon. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 330 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 24.01.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical

Mukesh Kumar Munjal, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Ranjit Kaur, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 08.11.2023 passed for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has taken five grounds of appeal

Kawaljit Kaur, Mohali vs. Ward 6(1), Chandigarh, Mohali

ITA 1048/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 148

Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 VIRTUAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.08.2024 passed for assessment year

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 08.12.2022 passed for assessment year

Rampal, Derabassi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 500/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Garg, CA for Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr.DR

Section 254(2)

Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 26.06.2023 passed for assessment year

Sanskritik Mandal, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Exemption, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2584/PUN/2024[-]Status: PendingITAT Pune11 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2584/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: N.A. Sanskritik Mandal, V The Commissioner Of At Dnyaneshwar Nagar, S Income Tax, Dnyaneshwar Ssk Ltd., Exemption, Pune. Post Bhende Sk, New Asan, Ahmednagar – 414605. Pan: Aabts1957M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Ld.Cit Exemption Has Erred In Not Granting Registration U/S 80G(5)(Vi) Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case. Your Appellant Prays For Grant Of Such Registration U/S S 80G(5)(Iv) Of It Act.

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) was cancelled. 3. Aggrieved with such order of ld.CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld.Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that necessary compliance could not be made before the ld.CIT

Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 692/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 48

assessee within the time allowed under the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 4. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. When the appeal was called for hearing, Ld. AR appeared from the side of the assessee and draw our attention to the fact ... affidavit has been filed before this Tribunal through which the assessee is seeking condonation of delay of 730 days in filing of this appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. AR further submitted that the delay of 730 days as 7 pointed out by the Registry of this Tribunal is not correct

Kailaswasi Narayan Alias Bapu Patil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolhapur

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

ITA 620/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: CA Supriya PowarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

hereby confirmed. Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 raised by the appellant are accordingly dismissed.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the A.O. ignored the provisions

Koteswara Rao Malleboyina, Andhra Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ongole

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

ITA 202/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Jyothisri Vankina, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and an affidavit explaining the delay in filing of the appeal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that ... caused in fling the appeal before the ITAT. The Ld. AR ITA No.202/Hyd/2025 2 further submitted that, the delay caused in filing the appeal before the tribunal is not intentional and was due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench

Raziulla Syed, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

assessment year 2017-2018. 2 ITA.No.986/Hyd./2024 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for condonation of delay. We are satisfied with the reasons furnished by the assessee ... delay in filing the appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as under. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and working

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rohini Minerals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 980/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

this account. Accordingly, Grounds on this issue succeed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld.Sr.AR, Shri Srinath Sadanala submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the purchases made from M/s Jagannath Agro ... delete the above disallowed. Accordingly, the grounds are Allowed.” 18. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. Shri B.Bala Krishna, Ld.CIT-DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the payment of performance bonus does not fall under

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rohini Minerals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 1080/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rohini Minerals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for

ITA 1079/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A