“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

Gajanan Ferro Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 84/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

raised similar grounds of appeal. We also find that in these appeals, there is also a delay of 1 day in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The facts of these appeals are common to the facts and grounds as raised in ITA No. 84/Ran/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13, which ... penalty. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, the delay of one day in filing of appeals before the Tribunal are condoned and these appeals of assessee are also allowed with similar direction. In the result, grounds of assessee’s appeals are allowed

Nitu Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 82/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

raised similar grounds of appeal. We also find that in this appeal, there is also a delay of 1 day in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The facts of this appeal are common to the facts and grounds as raised in ITA No. 81/Ran/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16, which ... penalty. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of facts, the delay of one day in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and this appeal of assessee is also allowed with similar direction. In the result, grounds of assessee’s appeal are allowed

Rinku Singh, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 81/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Mahanth Kumar Singh, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 232/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

Mahanth Kumar Singh. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147/144 of the Act, dated 24.03.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of AO is bad in law as it is based on single concept ... advance tax was also not paid by the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. On perusal of the appellate order it is noticed that while the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed non-compliance on the part

Svnit Alumni Association Surat Chapter, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1077/SRT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1076 & 1077/Srt/2024 (Physical Hearing) Svnit Alumni Association Surat Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Chapter, Ahmedabad Svnit Campus, Ichchanath Dumas Road, Surat – 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabhts3472N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

rejected and provisional registration was also cancelled. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted a paper book giving various details including the Memorandum of Association, activities of SVNIT Alumni Association, undertakings of the trust, audit ... merits of the case. The provisional approval was also cancelled. 9. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee-trust has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR submitted that as the assessee-trust was granted provisional approval, it was required to file the application for final approval

Svnit Alumni Association Surat Chapter, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1076/SRT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Feb 2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Seethamraju Satya Surya Venkata Uma Rani, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 512/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Seethamraju Satya Surya Venkata Vs. Income Tax Officer, Uma Rani, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Areps1245A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 4 “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 140/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 140/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited D.No. 49-12-33 Lalitha Temple Street Lalitha Nagar, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadas2078L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Income Tax Office Pratyakshakar Bhavan Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar : 06.02.2025 : 20.02.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Vide Din & Order No.

Section 143(3)

outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking ... beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 346 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee

Amanpreet Kaur L/H of Late Pavittar Kaur Walia, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 877/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 10.06.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was presented before the Tribunal

Narender Kumar, 251, 13 Co Garg Kiryana Store, Main Bazar Radaur, Yamunanagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Yamunanagar, Haryana

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 812/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 17Section 49

Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 31.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2011-12. Though assessee has taken six grounds of appeal

Seema Salwahan, Ambala Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ambala Cantt

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 54F

Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 28.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2018-19. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that

Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 28

deduction u/s 28 to 44DA of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Metarolls Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Adv Rahul Kaul, CA AnandFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Ground no. 2 of the appeal is, therefore, allowed.” 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The Ld. DR strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the entire addition. He submitted that when ... appeal raised by the appellant is hereby allowed.” 24. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 25. The Ld. DR strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and drew

Vishnu Saudagar Kshirasagar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 2489/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Amit MunotFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 143(2)

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 212 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay which is due to the severe injury ... NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Consultant appointed by the assessee did not respond properly

Bansal Land Developers, Panvel vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 2424/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 143(2)Section 43C

result, the appeal is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) (collectively referred

Bajirao Dnyaneshwar Andre, Nighoje Chakan vs. Income Tax Officer, Akurdi, Pune

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

ITA 2171/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. There is a delay of 16 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation ... NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee is a farmer having about 10 acres

Latur Maheshwari Mahasabha, Latur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1749/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

purpose of achieving its objects. Therefore, the undersigned has left no alternative but to reject the application.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-compliance before

Grant Medical Foundation, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Exemption Circle, Pune

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

ITA 1193/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

made available to the assessee.‖ 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The proceedings initiated u/s 263 is not only bad in law but also void because it was based on surmises

Bharat Shikshan Prasarak Malnadal Latur, Latur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1071/PUN/2024[2022-2023 TO 2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

time being in force by the assessee as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that non-compliance before

Maliha Syeda, Usa vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

ITA 834/HYD/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 92C

addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following additional grounds under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 : 1. “The Appellant has filed the present appeal challenging