← 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

Shri Om Parshavnath Developers Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 23/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Om Parshvanath Developers Private Limited Nadi Road, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G)-491 001 Pan: Aamcs7665N

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

hesitation in admitting the same. My aforesaid view that where an assessee, had raised, though for the first time, an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal which involves purely a question of law and requires no further verification of facts, then, the same merits admission finds support from ... opinion, the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee had failed to make out sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed time. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee

Rameshwar Thakur, Dalli Rajhara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 21/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rameshwar Thakur Bharitola, Chipara, Dalli Rajhara (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Adzpt6030H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Akansha Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available

Ram Kumar, Supaul vs. ITO, 3(5), Saharsa

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

ITA 464/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that ... partly allowed the appeal. 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 the Ld. CIT(A) issued certain directions to the Ld. AO and to pass the consequential order

Madhuri Devi, Saharsa vs. ITO Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 238/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, The Learned Assessing Officer, being ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa (Here in after called

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

No.541/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the order of PCIT, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed two paper books enclosing therein details of ongoing projects during FY.2017-18, tax audit report and audited accounts, reply

Hajara Basheer, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 902/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hajara Basheer .......... Appellant Hibas Kolathara P.O. Cheruvannur, Kozhikode 673655 [Pan: Ainph6373G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

wide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice

Sivaramapillai Anilkumar, Kollam vs. ITO, W-1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 893/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sivaramanpillai Anilkumar .......... Appellant A.S. Communications, Chathannoor Kollam 691572 [Pan: Agrpa1890K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Trivandurm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 250(6)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore

Puthiyarambath Balakrishnan, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 861/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Puthiyarambath Balakrishnan .......... Appellant "Achutham", Pilakkatt, Parambra Kottooli, Kozhikode 673016 [Pan: Aggpb2229J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(1), Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Rishal K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 184 days in filing the present appeal

The Nallepilly Service Cooperative Bank Limited Nor43, Nallepilly vs. ITO, Ward-1 Assessment Unit Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan Palakkad

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

ITA 857/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nallepilly Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant \5/453 Nallepilly, Chittur, Palakkad 678553 [Pan: Aacat5798F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678001

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset I find that there is a delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal ... operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act are eligible for deduction. The contra consideration of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal is incorrect and liable to be modified as stated above. Hence, it is held that the interest income earned by the assessee does

Notional Chits & Loans Pvt Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Trichur

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

ITA 853/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Notional Chits & Loans Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Ix/432, Vadanapilly, Thrissur 680614 [Pan: Aabcn4095N] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(1), Thrissur

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

paid of Rs. 4,51,684/- and the balance addition of Rs.40,65,160/- was confirmed. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. When the appeal was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice

Sib Staff Credit Society Ltd No.731, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 796/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sib Staff Credit Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Sib House, T.B. Road Mission Quarterss, Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Aafas7620E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(1), Thrissur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the appeal was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose

Shanavas Hassan, Muvattupuzha vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Aluva

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

ITA 281/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanavas Hassan .......... Appellant Pp-Ii-556, Proprietor, Goldwood Golden Valley, Pezhakkappilly P.O. Muvattupuzha 686673 [Pan: Aciph9662B] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Aluva Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 and a few other orders. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The assessee filed a letter dated 24.01.2025 seeking adjournment on the ground the partner of the CA firm

Prabheesh Nair, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 1003/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prabheesh Nair .......... Appellant 27/1421 Drisya: Govindapuram P.O. Calicut 673016 [Pan: Amqpp9364A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Rishal K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

Bhattacharjee and Anr [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 that the learned

Nilambur Taluk Co-Operative Employees Co-Operative Society, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward 2, Tirur

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

ITA 1002/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nilambur Taluk Co-Op. Employees .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Chandakumu Post, Nilambur 679329 [Pan: Aafat0457N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Tirur

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80P(2)(a)

filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset I find that there is a delay of 133 days in filing the present appeal

Bindu Madhav, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 203/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 14A

rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, it was contended by the assessee that there is no exempt income. This contention is coming out from the order

Inderjit Singh Brar, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 537/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 69

Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 12.03.2024 passed for assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora, H G Sharma
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

r.w.s.263 of the Act and dismissed both the appeals. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 1. Ld. Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the loans

Natco Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 853/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 41Section 80Section 92CSection 92D(3)

r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.AO/DRP erred in disallowing

Nitesh Mandhyan Lr Hiranand Mandhyan, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Manicktala

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

ITA 2056/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. Sr. DR. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Because, the assessee had died on 05/11/2016. The information of his death was supplied ... both the grounds of appeal were decided accordingly. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. With the assistance of the Ld. Sr. DR, the record and facts have been examined. In ground no. 1, the assessee has contended

Selvaperumal Govindaraj, Thiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1., Thiruvallur

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

ITA 3168/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3168/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Selvaperumal Govindaraj, Income Tax Officer, #107, Nehru Bazaar, Uthukottai, Vs. Ward-1, Thiruvallur-602 026. Thiruvallur. Pan: Bejpg-8169-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. D.Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Addl/Joint Cit(A)-5, Mumbai, Order Dated 27.11.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is An Agricultural Produce Commission Agent. During The Financial Year, There Was Total Credit Of Rs.2,72,80,178/- In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. The Case Of The Was Reopened & Notice U/S.148 Was Issued. In Response To The Notice Issued U/S.148, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 19.04.2019 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.3,52,870/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Vide Order Dated 27.12.2019. In The Said Reassessment Order, The Ao Assessed Total Income At Rs.26,85,695/-. The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.23,32,825/- By Estimating The Profit At 12% Of Total Credits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee Amounting To Rs.2,72,80,178/-.

For Appellant: Mr. D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 44A

Accordingly, partial relief was given by the CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) , the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that on identical facts, Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case