← 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

Thakur Satyanarayan Kapuria Mandir Nyas Rampur, Rampur Bushahar vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 137/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Thakur Satyanarayan Kapuria The Cit (Exemptions), Mandir Nyas, Rampur. Vs Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt7216N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, CIT DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 VIRTUAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [in short ‘the CIT (E)’] dated 29.11.2024. 2. The solitary grievance

Sh. Shankar Lal S/O Sh. Bastiram Through Legal Heir Smt. Sudarshana Devi, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panchkula

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

ITA 1234/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1234/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Shankar Lal S/O Shri Bastiram, The Ito, Through L/H Smt. Sudershana Devi, Vs Ward-4, Village – Kaimbwala, Chandigarh. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abgpl9378P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 159(2)Section 2(14)

Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 30.03.2022 passed for assessment year

Pawan Garg, Panchkula vs. ITO Ward 5((5) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1218/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 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 ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 04.12.2024 passed for assessment year

Vijay Fomra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2729/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2729/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vijay Fomra…………………..………………....…………………....Appellant 57, Fomra House Burtolla Street, Burrabazar, Kol-7.. [Pan: Aadpf7609P] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata..…….……....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sonal Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,98,860. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) By Making Certain Additions. 3. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, There Was A Delay Of 74 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Solely On The

Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal solely on the I.T.A. No.2729/Kol/2025 Vijay Fomra ground of delay, without adjudicating the issues on merits. Being dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal merely on technical grounds without granting

Bhaveshbharthi Ghanshyambharthi Goswami, Surat vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have carefully considered the orders of the lower authorities, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material placed on record. Undisputedly

Kanjibhai Dayalbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

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

ITA 1189/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144Section 147Section 250

finding the cause for delay as reasonable. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have perused the order of the authorities below and the material placed on record. On going through the record, we find that

Narottambhai Chhotubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1185/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

appeal was not maintainable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Narottambhai Chhotubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3– 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

Rahulkumar Shantilal Shah, Bardoli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1184/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard

Madhu Devi, Nawada vs. ITO, Ward 2 (3), Biharsharif, Patna

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

ITA 516/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148ASection 250

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the proceeding initiated under section 147/148 of the Income ... file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that both at the assessment stage as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), proper submission was not made

Punam Devi, Munger vs. A.O., NFAC, Munger

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

ITA 515/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 26.09.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation request for delay in filing of Appeal ... dismissed the appeal on account of delay. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that both before

Income Tax Officer, Katihar vs. Birendra Kumar Sancheti, Katihar

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

ITA 405/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... appeal of the appellant is Allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 6. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that

Rajesh Kumar, East Champaran vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 266/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order of the Authorities below are bad in law and facts ... assessment order was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that adequate opportunity

Bijay Kumar Saraf, Daldali Bazar, Muzaffarpur vs. Dc/Ac Circle 1, Muzffarpur, It-Office, Police Line, Sikanderpur Muzzaffarpur

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

ITA 205/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194(7)Section 194C(6)Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 25.02.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the learned commissioner of income tax appeals had erred in law and in facts in passing ... partially allowed. 4. The appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that the assessment order

Vishva Kalyan Foundation, Surendranagar vs. ITO Ward 2 Exempetion Ahmedabad, Ahmedaabd

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, SR-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

appeal before CIT(A) was filed on 09-03-2025, the order of CIT(A) was passed in August 2025 and the present appeal before the Tribunal was filed in October 2025. 9. The central grievance of the assessee before us is that exemption under sections

Shree Varad Vinayak Hospital and Healthcare Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2983/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: Shri Jasraj SutarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 30.09.2023. 2. There is a delay of 552 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay which are as under : “2. That the order rejecting ... assessee is not regularly registered u/s 12A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. That the learned CIT erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for approval under section 80G of the Income

The Mahatma Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mdt., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), Pune

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

ITA 2578/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Learned counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the copy of case laws furnished

Sangita Ramchandra Mahadik, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 81(2), Pune

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

ITA 2419/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2419/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sangita Ramchandra Mahadik, Ito, Ward-81(2), Pune E-704, Dewdale Housing Society, Opposite Tranquille Society, Vs. Datta Mandir Road, Wakad, Pune-411057 Pan : Ajipm3603J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kamal Valvani Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Kamal ValvaniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

with the order of the AO is called for and all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing

Latthe Education Societys Employees Co Operative Credit Soc Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 2331/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2331/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Latthe Education Society Vs. Assessment Unit, Employees Co-Operative Income Tax Department. Credit Soc. Ltd., Gajanan Complex, G. A. College Of Commerce, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Aaaal0118K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R. Y. Balawade Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Of Denying Deduction Under Section 80P In Respect Interest Earned By The Appellant Society On Deposits With Other Co-Operative Banks, Not Accepting The Submission Of The Appellant In This Respect.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared from the side of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed

Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur vs. Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2265/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2265/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur A/P Umadi Tal Jath, Vs. Dist. Sangli-416413 Pan : Aaets2962D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs M.N. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

removed and benefit under section 11 of the Act are available to the appellant trust.” 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : “i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1894/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 706 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay which are as under ... dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsing the findings of the Ld. AO, against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was non-compliance