“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

Sri. T . Rajesh(HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

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

ITA 2011/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

addition of Rs.36,82,000/- as unexplained money. 4.3 Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two paper books comprising 86 pages enclosing therein various documents/records furnished before the authority below as well as case

Sri. Veerabhadreshwara Arecanut Company, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shivamoga

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1821/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Gowrish Bhargav, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

accordingly dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 3.2. Aggrieved by the order Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed paper book comprising 65 pages enclosing therein various documents/records furnished before the authority below as well as case laws relied

Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Ms. Stany Basil Mathias, Karnataka

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1694/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 156Section 250Section 69

along with the documents/records produced during the appellate proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had filed paper book comprising 68 pages enclosing therein the documents/records filed before the AO as well as before

Mr. Dinesh Tarachand Parihar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 114/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Tribunal.

Section 144Section 147Section 148

pages 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Apart from that there is a delay of 117 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us ld. Counsel has submitted an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit of the assessee. In the said affidavit

Ekta Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Virar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5)/Thane, Thane

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

present case, deposits/investments were made with Co-operative Banks and not with co-operative societies. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, assessee is a co-operative credit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane, Wagle Industrial Estate, Ashar It Park vs. Aplab Limited, Belapur Road Digha, Navi Mumba

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5434/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry: A.Y. : 2017-18 C.O. No. 259/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2017-18 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5434/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

relief to the assessee in respect of 2 C.O. No. 259/Mum/2024 adhoc addition made by the AO. Hence both the parties are in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The assessee company is carrying on business in various sectors like telecommunication, IT, retail banking, retail fuel dispensing and power control & conditioning

M/S Pranay Traders and Suppliers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5400/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No. 5400/MUM/2024\nAssessment Year: 2016-17\n\nPranay Traders and Suppliers\nPvt. Ltd.,\n63, Deccan Court, S.V. Road,\nBandra West,\nMumbai – 400 050\n(PAN : AAGCP5928D)\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nAssistant Commissioner of\nIncome-tax,\nCircle 13(1)(2),\nMumbai\n(Respondent)\n\nPresent for:\nAssessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate\nRevenue : Shri Krishna Kumar – Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing : 28.11.2024\nDate of Pronoun

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar – Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Iei Shareholding Training and Development 1994 Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai

ITA 4191/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Iei Shareholding Dcit Circle 22(1) Training & Development Piramal 1994 Trust Vs. Chambers Ion House, Dr. F. Moses Lalbaug, Parel Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 011. 012. Pan : Aaaai0912N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kiran UnavekarFor Respondent: Shri Motichand Gupta

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 164(1)

income of the Appellant to slab rate. The relief sought in the rectification application is similar to the relief sought in the subject appeal before the Tribunal. The CPC has processed the rectification application on 14.12.2024 and granted us the relief sought therein, by restricting the rate

Dhaval Himmat Bhandra, Mumbai vs. ITO - 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3886/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dhaval Himmat Bhandra, Ito-34(1)(1), 401, Beach Apartment, Balraj Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Sahani Road, Near Novotel Complex, Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Bhjpb 7511 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anand MundraFor Respondent: 09/01/2025

Section 68

also upheld the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal

Unilever Undustries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7438/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)

Rs.51.65 crores). Accordingly, the ld.DRP confirmed an addition of Rs. 19.32 cr. Unilever Industries Pvt. Ltd 6. Accordingly, the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal being aggrieved by the ld. DRP's Directions upholding the attribution of royalty earned by Unilever Plc., to the assessee; and the Revenue filed

Unilever Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1280/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Unilever Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1123/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)

Harsha, Jiwana Baghpat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5) Baraut, Baraut

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

ITA 3527/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Harsha, Ward-1(5), Jiwana Baghpat-250611, Vs. Baraut. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Adlph3085L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/02/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Vide Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) Dated 01/11/2023 For The Asst. Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & During This Year Had Purchased An Agricultural Land Measuring 8.8200 Hectare In Auction Jointly With Five Other Persons At A Total Sale Consideration Of Rs.1,50,82,200/-. Beside This A Sum Of Rs. Harsha Vs. Ito 7,55,000/- Was Paid Towards Stamp Duty Making Total Cost Of Land Was At Rs. 1,65,92,000/-. As The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income, The Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29/03/2019. The Assessee Has Not Attended The Reassessment Proceedings & The Finally The Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Act On 7/12/2019 Wherein The Ao Had Made The Addition Of Rs. 27,65,333/- Being His Share In Investment In Acquisition Of The Property From Undisclosed Sources.

Section 144Section 148Section 250

admitted these additional evidences and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against such order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of following grounds of appeal. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

DCIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Hazoorilal and Sons Jewellers Private Limited, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3497/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Rs.3.50 crores as unexplained investment of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. General The orders passed by the Lower Authorities are bad in law, are against

Kuthanur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kuthanur, Palakkad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Palakkad

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

ITA 974/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuthanur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kuthanur, Palakkad 678621 [Pan: Aaaak1516G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Palakkad

For Appellant: Ms. Dhanya G., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee [1977] 118 ITR 461 (SC) and a few other orders. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find

Feroke Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 725/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Feroke Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 1, Cheruvannur, Feroke, Kozhikoe 673631 [Pan: Aaaaf2402N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(3), Kozhikode Appellant By: Shri Rishal K., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rishal K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80P

before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. As contemplated

Narayanan Dudhachan, Cherai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(4) &Tps, Kochi

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

ITA 965/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narayanan Dudhachan .......... Appellant Vatheriparambil Veedu Cherai P.O., Ernakulam 683514 [Pan: Awepd4773F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward- 2(4) & Tps, Kochi

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

explained and the balance addition of Rs. 10,66,000/- was confirmed. 3 Narayanan Dudhachan 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that the CIT(A) have erred in ignoring the confirmation letters of daughters. It is further

Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 38/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 802/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna अपीलार्थी / Appellant The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Rajuri Ves, Beed – 431122, Vs. Maharashtra Pan : Aaaat5256C Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Shri Amol Khairnar 02-12-2024 21-02-2025 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Per Astha Chandra, Jm : आदेश / Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders All Dated 28.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

Jurisdictional High Court, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed.” Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following solitary ground of appeal : "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC erred in deleting ... Jurisdictional High Court, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed.” 12. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "01. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC erred

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 801/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

Jurisdictional High Court, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed.” Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following solitary ground of appeal : "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC erred in deleting ... Jurisdictional High Court, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed.” Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "01. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC erred in deleting