“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

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1290/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P Kumar –For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO. 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-compliance of the notice

Oplus Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Swati Concast and Power Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2550/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

statement of facts and the additions were confirmed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR who appeared on behalf

Marappan Lakshmanan, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 3347/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marappan Lakshmanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 43, Olapalayam B.O., Ward 2(1), Perundurai, Erode 638 052. Erode. [Pan:Afhpl5944A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.11.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

while confirming the addition made towards undisclosed business income of ₹.1,79,900/-, against which the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.2,67,000/- and also ₹.5,31,000/- under section

Nilaa Charitable Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 3126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Sendamarai Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

failed to prove the genuineness and capacity of the donors." 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper book, one enclosing case laws relied on. In the other set of paper book, the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Thanjavur vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3078/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3078/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of City Union Bank Limited, Income Tax, Vs. 24B, Narayana, Circle-2(1) Gandhi Nagar, Thanjavur. Kumbakonam-612 001. Pan: Aaacc-1287-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. S.Ananthan, C.A. & Ms.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Ananthan, C.A. &

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 40

decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Department has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned DR relied on the grounds raised. 6. The learned AR was duly heard. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

order within the stipulated time after providing due opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate filed paper book and 5 I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/24 also filed detailed written submissions. The ld. AR submits

Capco Finance and Investment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on

ITA 44/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 249(2)Section 271FSection 69

follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee

Raj Legacy 1 Co -Operative Hsg . Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 255/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Dhanshyam PatelFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

outside the purview of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has argued that on similar facts and circumstances, numerous decisions by the co-ordinate benches have allowed the claim

Raj Legacy 1 Co Operative Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 254/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Dhanshyam PatelFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Payal Harshang Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO( Int Taxation) Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhripayal Harshang Shah V/S. Ito (International 503, 5Th Floor, Asha बनाम Taxation)-Ward 4(2)(1) Building, Dongarsi Road, Room No. 632, 6Th Floor, Walkeshwar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400006 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adopg6209N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Kapil K. JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

after taking approval of the Ld. DRP. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The sole substantive issue involved in this case is the addition made u/s 69A of the Act in respect of the amounts received by the assessee from ... should be treated as unexplained receipts u/s 69A of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that during the course of remand proceedings, all the requisite details were submitted before

Aakash Deep Sethi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - International Tax - 4(2)(1), Bandra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6988/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriaakash Deep Sethi V/S. Ito-International Tax- 66/5/3, 3 Sector, 5 बनाम 4(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Neelkamal Building, Cbd Bandra Kurla Complex, Belapur, Bandra, Maharashtra-400614 Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Efips1860F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

unexplained investment. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2018-19. Aakash Deep Sethi Aggrieved with this order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has explained that a sum of Rs. 88,42,898/- towards the purchase of the property in question

Infrasructure Services, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 33(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 6625/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

above Grounds of Appeal.” 2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay of about 48 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee never received any notice on email or even any message on registered mobile regarding the hearing dates before ... submitted that the delay was unintentional and in bonafide circumstances. 2.1 The Ld.AR thus submitted that there was sufficient reason in filing the appeal before this Tribunal belatedly and prayed for the delay to be condoned. It is submitted that the assessee has good case on merit

Dkt Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6569/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was 05.10.2024.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal vide order dated 16.11.2017 and we have not filed a submission before him. 8. So, immediately we initiated the process of filling appeal before the Tribunal and on 14.12.2024 we had paid the appeal filling challan and on 16.12.2024 appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate

Kaushaliyadevi Atmaram Singhania Charitable Truse, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 6320/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrikaushaliyadevi Atmaram V/S. Cit (Exemption)-Mumbai Singhania Charitable Trust बनाम Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 45 & 46, Ideal Industrial Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Estate, Senapati Bapat Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Marg, Lower Parel, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk4043P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

view of the above this application Form is hereby rejected.” 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has cited a plethora of decisions wherein the co- ordinate benches have allowed condonation of delay and/or rectification

Prevision Project Management Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -14(2)(4), Mumubai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 5799/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 147Section 69ASection 69C

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner /Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5086/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92D

order making addition in the hands of the assessee at ₹6,45,17,464/-. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, assessee is on appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that assessee filed 2 appeals being IT number 5086/M/2024 and 5060/M/2024 11 ITA No. 5060&5086/Mum/2024

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5060/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92D

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani, Mumbai

ITA 3553/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

against the aforesaid Assessment Order was allowed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 16/05/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the relief granted by the CIT(A), while the Revenue has filed cross- objection challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani, Thane

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the departmental appeal in relation to the relief granted by the CIT(A) on merits are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 3552/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 250

against the aforesaid Assessment Order was allowed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 16/05/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal ITA No. 3552/Mum/2024& C.O. No. 226/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 challenging the relief granted by the CIT(A), while the Revenue has filed

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani, Thane

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the departmental appeal in relation to the relief granted by the CIT(A) on merits are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 3551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

against the aforesaid Assessment Order was allowed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 16/05/2024. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the relief granted by the CIT(A), while the Revenue has filed cross-objection challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings