“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad vs. Ace Constructions, Hyderabad

ITA 54/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271ASection 68

assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld.DR, Shri Srinath Sadanala submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts, in quashing the assessment order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad vs. Royal Engineering, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 44/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.44/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Royal Engineering Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Aatfr9338R] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 153CSection 68

Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Asma Estates & Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 37/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.37/Hyd/2021 To 39/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Asma Estates & Income Tax Investments Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaica2191F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 13/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153C

therefore, deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld.Sr.AR, Shri Srinath Sadanala submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards advances ... No.37-39/Hyd/2021 Asma Estates & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad 19. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. The Ld.Sr.AR, Shri Srinath Sadanala, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

M/S Taranga Vyapar Pvt. Ltd, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 673/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 673/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Taranga Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.,…………...……Appellant C/O. Durga Hyundai, Sevoke Road, Pc Mittal Bus Stand, Siliguri, Darjeeling-734001, West Bengal [Pan:Aacct4027H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-2(1), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, W.B.

Section 144Section 147

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 122 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim vs. Nirmala Sharma, Soreng, West Sikkim

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2298/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 147Section 250Section 69

dated 19.09.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147/144 of the Act, dated 03.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee ... ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or in course of hearing of the appeal.” 2.1. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is not justified both in law and in fact

Nirmala Sharma, Gangtok vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2227/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 147Section 250Section 69

Om Vinyls Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3549/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya - CIT DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

turnover of Rs.2,91,33,793/- on ground that the sale register is not reliable. 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, for issues at (b) and (c), since ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said additions. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused

Puja Entertainment (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 37(1)

Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 461 (SC). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the modus operandi and peculiar manner of conduct of business in the industry to which

M/S Rameshth Construction, Jhansi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Dismissed The Appeal Against Which The Assessee Preferred The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Tribunal Vide Order Dated

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal against which the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, and Tribunal vide order dated 02-03-2021 partly allowing the appeal, deleted the addition of 3 ITA No.90/AGR/2023 Rs.1,97,809/- on account of interest

Rainbow Estates P Ltd, Bandar Bachicha vs. CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 258/PAT/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

dated 16.12.2022. I.T.A. No.: 258/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rainbow Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. National faceless appeal centre (NFAC) erred in not allowing the credit of mat in the return

Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle-1, Patna

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

ITA 344/PAT/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

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 the order ... Object Clause is incorrect.” 4. Rival contentions heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted during the course of the appeal before the Tribunal that the return showing total income of Rs. ‘NIL’ was filed and the case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued

Nayanaben Gordhandas Jatwani, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3), Surat

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the legal representative of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Nayanaben Gordhandas Jatwani, Vs. The Acit, 10/2390 Chow Bazar, Surat – Circle – 1(3), 395003, Gujarat Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaypj7362E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 159(3)Section 250Section 69A

levy of tax at higher rate u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted a paper book containing pages 1 to 74. The ld. AR has argued against

Kizhakkekara Sivaraman Nair Unnikrishnan Nair, Ernakulam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 629/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kizhakkekara Sivaraman Niar .......... Appellant Unnikrishnan Nair Kizhakkekara House, Palakuzha Post Koothatuukulam, Ernakulam 686662 [Pan: Alepk0704G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Thodupuzha

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

that the appellant had not furnished proof of receipt of contract received in cash from treasury. 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 186 days in filing the present appeal

Vimala Hospital, Cochin vs. Deputy Commissioner -Income Tax -CPC, Cochin

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

ITA 377/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vimala Hospital .......... Appellant Kanjoor P.O., Kalady 683575 [Pan: Aaatv1816H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) .......... Respondent Cochin

For Appellant: Shri Johny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

filing revised return of income and the CIT(A) justified the CPC making the adjustment. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CPC ought not have made the adjustment on account

Anil Jaywant Balwadkar L/R of Late Jaywant Kashiram Balwadkar, Pune vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 758/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Mrs. Daini ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee passed away on 17.04.2021 and thereafter the matter is being

National Association of Interlocking Surgeons, Solapur, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2817/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare

Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

u/s.154 requesting the AO to calculate the tax payable under Normal Tax rate, which came to be rejected. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand supported the orders of the lower authorities and also submitted that the assesee

National Association of Interlocking Surgeons, Solapur, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2816/PUN/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare

Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

National Association of Interlocking Surgeons, Solapur, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2560/PUN/2024[AAATN9300L]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare

Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

Lok Kalyan Mandal, Ganpati Mandir, Dr Hedgewar Nagar, Ichalkaranji vs. Exemption Ward, Kolhapur, Aayakar Bhavan

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

ITA 2337/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee had responded to the first notice issued

Lotus Multy Speciality Hospital, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14() Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2259/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N.C

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270A

outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is delay of 57 days in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the notices were sent on email of the previous Tax Consultant Mr. Abhijeet Gaikwad who failed to respond to the notices. Further, the said ... there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay occurred in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji