← 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

Malkit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer, Guraspur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 272/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.272/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: None ( Adjournment application )For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

Assessing Officer as per amended provision of section 251(1)(a) of the Act for fresh assessment. 5. The Assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the main grievance of the Assessee as per the grounds of appeal are that

Mukhtar Ahmad Sheikh, Bandipora vs. ITO Ward 1, Srinagar

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

ITA 271/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 271/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukhtar Ahmed Sheikh, Ito, Ward 2, Bandipore V Ward 1, Kashmir 193502 S Srinagar Srinagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing Assessee By : Sh. Revenue By : Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 69

various dates are reflected in the paragraph 5.1 of the appellate orders. 7. Now, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the main grievance of the Assessee is that he has not been allowed proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. He further submitted that since the Assessee

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. Shri Nagendra Prasad, Patna

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands allowed

ITA 109/PAT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri N.K.Lal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. A.H.Chowdhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

appeal filed by the revenue, admittedly, does not survive, insofar as necessary approvals have been taken by the revenue for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In any case, such defects, if any, in respect 4 of filing of the appeal, is in regard to the admission of the appeal

Paramjit Singh, Mohali, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 548/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपीलसं ./ Ita No. 548/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Paramjit Singh, The Ito, Village-Hansali Khera, Vs Ward 6(1), Distt. Fatehgarh, Punjab. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Dmhps4546F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

Date of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 13.03.2023 passed for assessment year

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raj Goenka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1801/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

regards other income; it was not considered to be in the hands of the present assessee. Obviously, the department being aggrieved preferred appeal before the Tribunal and at the same time, the present assessee filed cross objection regarding part of the income, to the extent

Zafar Iqbal, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Siliguri

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') for AY 2016-17 dated 14.05.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the order u/s 250 passed ... dated 14.05.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 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 submissions made have been examined. 6. Ground Nos. 1 and 9 are general in nature

Shriram Fiance Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2635/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2635/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Finance Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Since Shriram City Union Finance Vs. Of Income Tax, Limited Amalgamated With Corporate Circle 3(1), Shriram Transport Finance Co. Chennai. Ltd. & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Ltd.,) Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

securities were sold in those years which had resulted in loss. 5. Aggrieved by the order of FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR on merits submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

Hari Roadwayas Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 6394/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 250Section 68

same during the assessment proceedings and he dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 16.09.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore

Ncr Warehousing Private Limited, Gurugram vs. CIT Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 6307/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

dismissed the assessee’s appeal upholding the computation made by the Ld. A.O. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 1 | P a g e 3. Before us, the Ld. AO submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) order was not justified in confirming the addition made

ACIT, Delhi vs. Manik Wadhwa, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 4349/DEL/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon'Ble

Section 119Section 270A

4349_DEL_2025_Manik Wadhwa IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

Birfa International Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1) Delhi, Cr Building

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1705/DEL/2024[2017-2018 ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143(2)

vide his order dated 21-02-2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He prayed that the opportunity of being heard

Birfa International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 27, New Delhi

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

ITA 1421/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri**

Section 143(2)

vide his order dated 31-01-2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. - 5. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He prayed that the opportunity of being heard

Trilok Foundation Charitable Trust, Na vs. Arivs.CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 894/SRT/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambletrilok Foundation Charitable The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Trust, Tax Exemption, 207, Rameshwar Apartment, Ahmedabad. Station Road, Navsari-396445. [Pan : Aaett5522 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Manoj Makhania, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Makhania, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

held to be outside the scope of Section 80G of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Asst. Year : 2026-27 - 3– 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) has drawn adverse conclusions

Mittal Cotspin Limited, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 950/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 950/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Mittal Cotspin Ltd., The Ito, St. No. 1, Opp. Govt. Primary Vs Ward 2(5), High School, Madhopouri, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagcm7124G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca, Shri Aditya Sood, Ca & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Sood, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Date of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 25.06.2025 passed for assessment year

Prerana Foundation, Gandhinagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1914/AHD/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026

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

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh V Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

substantial documentary evidences u/s.12A (1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT

Jayshreeben Rohitbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaljayshreeben Rohitbhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 9, Chinubhai Centre, Ward-5(2)(2), Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380006. [Pan :Aawpp1043 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay H Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

failed to discharge the onus cast upon her. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the section 68 of the Act is not applicable in the absence of books

Jayesh Darbi Collection, Solapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Solapur

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

ITA 769/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli
Section 143Section 143(1)

Udaipur [“Addl./JCIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2022-23. 2. There is a delay of 22 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides ... found to be correct. 6. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower

Prathmesh Construction, Pune vs. DCIT Circle - 2 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1814/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT (virtual)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

accordingly deleted. Rs.20,46,468/- is hereby confirmed. Grounds no. 1 and 2 are partly allowed.” 5. The Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal against the deletion of Rs.11,99,68,118/-. 4 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

Devtech M2M Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1231/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21 Devtech M2M Limited Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), 4Th Floor, Sava House, Pune Vs. Opp New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aadcb4376Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

addition / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 3 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to some mistake on the part of employee

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 876/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 145(2)Section 250

impairment of loss of Rs. 2,40,16,579/-. 6. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee in now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition