← 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

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Palayanada, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 482/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Palayanada, Calicut vs. ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 481/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Palayanada, Palayanada vs. ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 480/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Palayanada vs. ITO, TDS Ward, Calicut, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 479/COCH/2024[2024-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2024-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Palayanada vs. ITO, TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 478/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Palayanada, Palayanada vs. ITO, (TDS) Ward, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 477/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed

Jawahar Na Vodaya Vidyalay, Palayanada vs. Ward-TDS, Vaishali

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 476/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Palayanada, Palayanada vs. ITO, (TDS) Ward, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 475/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before him. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1107 days. The appellant filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating as under: - “1. We have filed

Kadirur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kadirur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 872/COCH/2023[AY.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kadirur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kadirur, Thalassery, Kannur 670642 [Pan: Aacak6088R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Kannur Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80P

doubtful debts, have confirmed the addition on account of income tax refund of Rs. 44,40,300/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned A.R. submitted that he CIT(A) ought not have confirmed the addition of the income

Sh. Pawan Kumar, Panchkula vs. ACIT, Circle, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 369/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 254(2)

Hearing : 31.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04 .02.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 19.05.2023 passed for assessment year

M/S Gazebo Constructions Private Limited, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 658/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 254(2)

Hearing : 03.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 12.08.2022 passed for assessment year

M/S Samrttha Developers, Pune vs. ITO Ward-2(1) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2273/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 23 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 ... Shamsher Jang Bahadurvs vs. ACIT vide ITA No.488/Asr/2010 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that both the orders passed by the lower authorities

Hyderabad Castings Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 6/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Bleshri Manjunatha. G. Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Harshita Chouhan, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801ASection 80I

addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Addl/JCIT appeal, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is erred in sustaining the addition towards disallowance of deduction

Balineni Kishorebabu, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 33/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 33/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Balineni Kishore Vs. Income Tax Officer Babu, Vijayawada Ward 14(2) Pan:Asqpb9632D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Naveen Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18/11/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-/Addl/ Jcit(I)-10 Mumbai, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Sustaining The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri B Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in response to the statutory notices

Aryavysya Seva Sangham Pattana, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 25/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 25/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aryavysya Seva Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer Pattana Ward 1 Warangal Warangal Pan:Aadaa1704H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Harshita Chouhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17/12/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.20176-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law Apart From Being Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 33,34,200/ As Unexplained Money Under Section 69A Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Harshita Chouhan, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 69A

assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) who gave partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 2 of 4 ITA No 25 of 2025 Aryavysya Seva Sangham Pattana 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that though

Ravi Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 167/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.167/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Adopk6597R] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.Srinivas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee, An Individual Entered Into A Development Agreement Cum General Power Of Attorney Vide Document Number 560/2011 Dated 24.03.2011 With M/S Gayathri Construction Company For Joint Development Of A Property. The Assessee Had Not Disclosed The Transaction In His Return Of Income. Therefore, The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri A.Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54F

additions made by the Assessing Officer towards capital gains. 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 submitted that the Ld.CIT(A), having accepted in principle, that the assessee is entitled for deduction

Patloth Laxmi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1382/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1382/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Patloth Laxmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan :Adjpl4782E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y., Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 03/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi , Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 270 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Underwent A Heart Surgery & She Was Advised Bed Rest Upto The Last Week Of December 2024. The Assessee Submitted A Medical Certificate In Proof & Pleaded That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y., DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 69A

reasonable cause for the assessee to file the appeal belatedly, hence, we condone the delay of 270 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication in the interest of justice. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... Officer towards cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA 1382/Hyd/2024 Patloth Laxmi 8. Shri, S.Rama Rao, Advocate, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is erred

Thirupathi Rao Naineni, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 1258/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1258/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Thirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Naineni Ward-2 Karimnagar Karimnagar Pan:Acepn4048D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

with the notices issued by the learned CIT (A), the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee would be in a position to explain his case

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1124/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

account of deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant. 4.1. Aggrieved by the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal and ground nos.2

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Msn Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 1123/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

incurred against unaccounted receipts from sale of spent solvent / scrap. 4. Aggrieved by the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal for assessment year