“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -6(3), Mumbai vs. Sparkle Clean Tech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 959/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM: The department is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai [in short “CIT(A)"] passed

Mr. Akhlaqueahmed Makhdumali Gharade, Mumbai vs. I T O, Ward-17 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6146/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Akhlaqueahmed Income Tax Officer, Makhdumali Gharade, Ward-17(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, R/N. 48 74, Vs. Mumbai Aishabai Chamber, Sofia Zubair Road, Nagapada, Mumbai Pan : Ajgpg2886B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

only purchased a property and not sold a property. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the assessee filed a Paper Book as well as written submissions. In the Paper Book, the assessee has furnished a copy

Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5183/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2016-17 Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Income Tax Officer, 4Th Floor, Ward-27(2)(1), Veer Vijay Apartment, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Building, M.G. Road, Ghatkoper West, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Mumbai 6Th Tower, Complex, Pan: Aqbps3462P Navi Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 10(38)Section 68

unexplained money, apparently u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has purchased shares in physical mode by paying purchase consideration through banking 3 channel. Subsequently, the shares were

Anand Baburao Walinjkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and withdrawn

ITA 4139/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhananand Bapurao Walinjkar Vs. Assessing Officer, Mum-W(174)(1) C/3, Nirmal Park, Jurisdictional Dr. Ambedkar Road, Assessing Officer, Byculla (East), Income Tax Officer Mumbai-400027. 20(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. Aawpw7030N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

Kiran Unavekar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 06.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM: The department is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai [in short “CIT(A)”] passed

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vidhisha Gold Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2663/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

first appellate authority, we notice that there is no clarity on the relief granted by him. Hence the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on all the three types of additions mentioned above. The revenue has filed appeal in granting partial relief in respect of cash credit additions relating

M/S. Vidhisha Gold Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-11(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 4063/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2) India Pvt. Ltd. D-181, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area , Phase-1 New Delhi- 110020 Pan :Aaack4816D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

revised the order and made the adjustment of Rs, 1,76,15,974/-. Being aggrieved the order the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. CIT(A) observed in his order as under: A.Y. 2008-09 M/s. Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. ITO 6 “I have perused the transfer pricing

ITO, Ward- 58(2), New Delhi vs. Neeraj Kumar, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical

ITA 5818/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 250

dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte confirming the additions made by the AO. 3. However, when the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal, it seems that he is vigilant to represent his case before the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the assessee has failed to make

Pradeep Kumar Patel, P.O Akhilaspur Bhabhua vs. Commissioner Appeal, New Delhi

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

ITA 361/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

which are found to be sufficient cause, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Unintentional Non-compliance: The non-compliance with income tax filing for the Assessment Year

Ksa Timber Mart, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 69/NAG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2020-2021. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed his condonation petition and affidavit explaining the reasons. I 2 ITA.No.69/NAG./2024 am satisfied with the affidavit filed ... reasons stated therein. I, therefore, condone the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the course of hearing none appeared for assessee, despite service of notice and listing the appeal on three occasions. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits, after hearing

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Janardan Shyam Bihari Singh, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 550/NAG/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 144

learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, the Learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that that the assessee

Ravi Dinkarrao Agrelwar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 468/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: MS. Alfiya Rozie, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

matter in issue on merits. 4. On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the very outset, submitted that the learned

Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Gondia, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Gondia

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 263/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)

honour to decide this appeal according to law.” 3. To support his prayer for condoning the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the assessee furnished an affidavit, the contents of which are reproduced below:– “I, Subhash Shyamrao Raut, Authorized Signatory

Jyoti Nitin Chaporkar, Amravati vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Amravati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 244/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoriyaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69C

confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.244/NAG./2024 5. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended, inter alia, that the assessee

Raosaheb Mohanlal Chimanlal Maniyar Trust, India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), India

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

ITA 2597/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Miss Smruti SabnisFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

cancelled the provisional registration granted under u/s 12AB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the grounds of appeal of the appellant

Raosaheb Mohanlal Chimanlal Maniyar Trust, India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), India

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

ITA 2596/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Miss Smruti SabnisFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Mrs. Rehana Abdul Wahab Sain, Khed, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-4, Ratnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2277/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 243ASection 69A

merit and dismissed the assessee’s appeal raising the legal issues as well as quantum addition. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before me, assessee filed a paper book running into 51 pages, however, the details filed at Sl. No.10, 11 and 12 i.e. diary

Mohammad Osman Mohammaf Haroonmotiwala, Auranganbad vs. PCIT- Nashik 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

frame the impugned assessment order afresh in the light of the aforesaid discussion that the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 9 ITA No.1133/PUN/2024, AY 2019-20 6. Referring to para 3.3 of the assessment order and the statement

Srinivas Shah Radraraju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 68

consequent commission paid to brokers for facilitating the transactions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, CA, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made

Bikash Kumar Mondal, Arambagh vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Hooghly, Chinsura

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

ITA 916/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(5)Section 40Section 44A

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 35 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 ... Rs.29,19,058/- for non-deduction of TDS inspite of submitting all relevant documents. 8. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 9. I have heard both the sides. It was the submission of the assessee that he purchased marble and granites from different parts