← 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

Venkata Muralidhar Atluri, Gudivada Rural Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

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

ITA 336/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.336/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Venkata Muralidhar Atluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Opp. Bhaskar Takkies Door No. 2/56, Chowtapalli Gudivada – 521301 Gudivada Rural Mandal Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh – 521323 [Pan: Ahqpa7838M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal based on the merits available on record. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Order of the Appellate Authority, passed under Section 250 of the Act, passed

Sandhi Raja Sekhar, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. 296/Viz/2024 (ननधधारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sandhi Raja Sekhar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram. Ward-1, Pan: Axrps2387J Bhimavaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

assessee thereby dismissing the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Piyush Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), Indore, ITO

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

ITA 368/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 199CSection 250Section 68

merit. Thus the appellant has failed to establish that the entries in the cash book are from sale proceeds." 5. In course of appeal before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same submissions which has been made before the ld. CIT(A), explaining the datewise requirements

Sujan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

course of search action. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty proceedings were initiated for ‘concealment of particulars of income’, whereas while

Oracle Granito Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Now Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 336/AHD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Oracle Granito Limited The Dcit, Cir.3(1)(2) 206, Dev Arc, Second Floor Vs Now Cir.3(1)(1) Nr.Fun Republic Ahmedabad. Opp: Big Bazar S.G. Highway Road Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaco 6238 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/03/2025

For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 36(1)(iii)

deleted the disallowance noting that the AO had not identified capital borrowed for acquiring the capital assets. 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. The ITAT noted that since the assessee had not furnished necessary break-up of the fund flow statements for reconciliation of funds utilized

Vivek Madan Karnani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessment proceedings in this case have been reopened

Mansingh Girirajsingh Rajput, Vadodra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(5), Vadodara, Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1915/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year: 2017-18 Mansingh Girirajsingh Rajput, The Income Tax Officer, 6, Aakruti Bunglows, Beside Ward-3(1)(5), Sona Nagar, Nava Bazar, Vs Vadodara. Karjan,Vadodara-391240 [Pan: Atcp3597G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar. Revenue Represented By : Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per : Dr. Brr Kumar: Delay Condoned This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short) Dated 26.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Learned Ao Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding An Addition Of Rs.20,88,220/- Being Disallowance Of 10 Percent Of 2

Section 250

assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.20,88,220/-, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has submitted the detailed labour register mentioning all the details before the Assessing Officer

Netafim Irrigation India Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT/DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1628/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2020-21 Netafim Irrigation India P.Ltd. Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Plot No.268-270, 271-B Vs Ahmedabad. Gidc, Manjusar, Savli Vadodara Pan : Aaace 4738 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 92C

international transaction to Rs.13,28,62,592/- as proposed by the TPO. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal raising the above grounds: 8. During the course of hearing before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that he would first lead

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Zydus Lifesciences Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 530/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 250Section 61

allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. DR relied on the above order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 154 of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR relied

Xcellon Education Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2681/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

within stipulated time. Both the penalties were confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal challenging levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act in its appeal in ITA No.2679/Ahd/2017 for Asst.Year 2015-16 raising the following

Xcellon Education Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2680/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

within stipulated time. Both the penalties were confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal challenging levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act in its appeal in ITA No.2679/Ahd/2017 for Asst.Year 2015-16 raising the following

Xcellon Education Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2679/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

within stipulated time. Both the penalties were confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal challenging levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act in its appeal in ITA No.2679/Ahd/2017 for Asst.Year 2015-16 raising the following

Xcellon Education Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Addl. CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2678/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

within stipulated time. Both the penalties were confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal challenging levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act in its appeal in ITA No.2679/Ahd/2017 for Asst.Year 2015-16 raising the following

Subbaiah Vairamani, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Madurai

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

ITA 2380/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2380/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subbaiah Vairamani, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 134, North Market Street, Income Tax, Madurai 625 001. Corporate Circle 1, [Pan:Abrpv9397H] Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. & Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 24 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A., &For Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. submits and drew our attention to the written submissions and submitted that the sales disclosed

Priyal Jatin Manik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah and Ms. Bhavisha Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69

balance is bad in law.” 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. In the said petition, it is submitted

Rotary Association of Dombivali Saudamini, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 242/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

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

preferred against the Ld. CIT (E)'s aforesaid Order dated 01/02/2024. 4. There is a delay of 288 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit dated 22/02/2025 of Mrs. Jayashree Uday Karve, Treasurer of the assessee trust, explaining in detail the circumstances

Rotary Association of Dombivali Saudamini, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 241/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

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

preferred against the Ld. CIT (E)'s aforesaid Order dated 01/02/2024. 4. There is a delay of 288 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit dated 22/02/2025 of Mrs. Jayashree Uday Karve, Treasurer of the assessee trust, explaining in detail the circumstances

Rotary Association of Dombivali Saudamini, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 240/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

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

preferred against the Ld. CIT (E)'s aforesaid Order dated 01/02/2024. 4. There is a delay of 288 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit dated 22/02/2025 of Mrs. Jayashree Uday Karve, Treasurer of the assessee trust, explaining in detail the circumstances

Rotary Association of Dombivali Saudamini, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 239/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

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

preferred against the Ld. CIT (E)'s aforesaid Order dated 01/02/2024. 4. There is a delay of 288 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit dated 22/02/2025 of Mrs. Jayashree Uday Karve, Treasurer of the assessee trust, explaining in detail the circumstances

Om Prakash Tantia, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 4737/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

identity and the creditworthiness of the parties and therefore, no addition could be made. 7. Against such order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition