← 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

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-16(2), Mumbai

ITA 292/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

clients – Rs. 34,94,907/-. 4. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Undisclosed Professional fee – Ground No.1 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO required ... treated income arising in India in the hands of non-resident parties. It is also noticed that the revenue has not preferred further appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A) in assessee's own case in AY 2012-13 where the issue is decided

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 291/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

clients – Rs. 34,94,907/-. 4. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Undisclosed Professional fee – Ground No.1 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO required ... treated income arising in India in the hands of non-resident parties. It is also noticed that the revenue has not preferred further appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A) in assessee's own case in AY 2012-13 where the issue is decided

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Joint Range- 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 289/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

clients – Rs. 34,94,907/-. 4. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Undisclosed Professional fee – Ground No.1 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO required ... treated income arising in India in the hands of non-resident parties. It is also noticed that the revenue has not preferred further appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A) in assessee's own case in AY 2012-13 where the issue is decided

Jagdish Kishin Raney, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2139/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamya, AR
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

gave partial relief to the assessee and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The assessee through the Authorized Representative (AR) has filed a letter dated 02.01.2025 stating that

Jessy Vijayan Pillai, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(4), Thane

ITA 2065/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 54Section 68

gave partial relied to the assessee by confirming the addition to the tune of Rs. 8,83,500/-. The assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR at the outset

Jogender, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year2017-18 Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Vs. Dcit, Circle Exemp-2(1), 1428 Maliwara , Chandni Civic Centre, Minto Road, Chowk Delhi 110006 New Delhi Pan No.Aapts1404B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Form 10 is upheld and grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 6. Ld. AR submitted that the Form 10 was uploaded before framing the assessment order. The Ld. AR drawing our attention

U and S Business Components Private Limited, Delhi vs. Ward 27(2), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2616/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

assessee in assessment order as ‘A-5, Sector-3, Noida’. Even, the CIT(A) has mentioned the same address, however, while filing appeal before the Tribunal in Form No. 36, the assessee has mentioned a different address for sending the notices i.e. ‘78, Shivaji Road, Meghdoot Crossing, Meerut’. Thus, from

Shramdeep Urban Co Op. Credit So. Ltd., Surat vs. ACIT Circle-3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 892/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.892/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Shramdeep Urban Co-Operative Credit Vs. The Acit, Society Limited, Circle -3(3), 11-12, Harekrushna Shopping Complex, Surat Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaas3229C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rushi Parekh, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted paper book, which includes submission before CIT(A), ITR, Computation and tax audit report for AY.2017-18, section

Santaji Cooperative Society Maryadit, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 597/NAG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 43B

Rs.11,78,216/- determined by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 ITA.No.597/NAG./2024 5. During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal

Sadbhawana Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Jagwani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

account of Sec.80P deduction and expenses claimed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the additions made by the 4 ITA.No.595/NAG./2024 Assessing Officer and sustained by the Learned

Digras Taluka Z P Shikshak Va Karmchari Sahkari Pat Sanstha, Yavatmal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yavatmal

ITA 571/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

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 and reiterated it's submissions made before the lower authorities. 5. During the course of hearing, both the parties agreed before us that

Nkt Tanstructural, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 44/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahadev Vichare, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)

short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2017-2018. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed ITA.No.44/NAG./2024 affidavit seeking for condonation of the delay. I am satisfied with the averments stated ... affidavit and condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in manufacturing of Structural Fabrication. The assessee did not file

Reackon Concretes Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT Or ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

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

ITA 42/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahadev Vichare, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2017-2018. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 254 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavit seeking 2 ITA.No.42/NAG./2024 for condonation of the delay . I am satisfied with the averments stated ... affidavit and condone the delay of 254 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and has filed it’s return of income on 15.09.2017 declaring income

Krishna Laxmanrao Gabhane, Amravati vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2, Amravati

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

ITA 358/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Atal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

absence of any supporting documentary evidence. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.358/NAG./2024 5. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the authorities below are not properly appreciated

Prathmik Krasi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Ratikhedi, Mandsaur vs. ITO, Mandsaur

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 409/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyaniand**

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

## **आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE** ## **BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Lalita Ramesh Jain, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pradhikaran Pune

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

ITA 1876/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Hence, the grounds of appeal No-3 and 4 are not allowed.” 6. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. 8. I have heard Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before

Durga Prasada Rao Vattem, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes

ITA 1412/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Koteswaramma, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 147

Prasada Rao Va"em vs. ITO prosecu"ng the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the ma"er is called, neither the assessee nor any authorised representa"ve entered appearance. It could be seen from

Syed Zubair Pasha, Tandur vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

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

ITA 1411/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1411/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Zubair Pasha Vs. Income Tax Officer Tandur Ward 1 Pan:Bowps3830M Vikarabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Sashank Dundu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Naveen Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That, The Appellant Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Stone Trading Activity. Re-Assessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Were Initiated In The Case Of The Appellant By Issuing Notice U/S Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Advocate Sashank DunduFor Respondent: : Shri B. Naveen Kumar, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69

learned CIT (A) 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 due to lack of awareness of the proceedings

Pragathi Polyplast India Pvt Ltd, Medak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1192/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1192/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Pragathi Polyplast India Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward-16(1) Medak Hyderabad [Pan :Aabcp8115D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 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 19.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Chennai, Pertaining To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Plastic Drums & Barrels Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2013-14 On 31.10.2013, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.11,48,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of Income

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

explanation of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on different grounds

Asp Fincorp, Park Street, Kolkata vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2062/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2062/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Jhawel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

assessee before the CIT(A) and again furnished certain details but finally failed to succeed. ASP Fincorp 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A). 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to various documents including audited profit and loss