“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

Shri Akhil Bhartiya Samarth Jain Shravak Sangh, Nashik vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 649/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

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

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

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act.” 6 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : “1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and in fact in rejecting the application filed

Mr Kedar Jagdish Mankar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 1624/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

PCIT. If the condonation is granted, she may again apply for rectification before the Jurisdictional Α.Ο.” 4.2 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR vide his written submission filed before the Bench (pages

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nanded vs. Latur District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

hold that the appellant is entitled to deduction of the provisions made on standard assets as well.” Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned issue is squarely covered

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

pass consequential order after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 M/s N.A.M.Expressway Limited 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Sri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, submitted that the Ld.PCIT erred

Sudha Murthy Boyina, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1256/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1256/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sudha Murthy Boyina Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-12(6) [Pan :Acepb4211A] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 29/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Reason That The Assessee Has Received Sale Consideration On Sale Of Immovable Property, However, Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y.2018-19 & Therefore, Notice

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, DR

Section 147Section 148

bank account and re-computation of short term capital loss. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared for the assessee, although the notice of hearing was sent to the address given in Form 36 filed by the assessee

Shyam Sunder Ravinuthala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1232/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1232/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shyam Sundar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ravinuthala Ward-10(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Amvpr6998K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Employee Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2016-17 On 31.03.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,33,600/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass To Verify ‘Whether Contract

For Appellant: Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

expenses and also additions towards deduction claimed under Chapter VIA. 4. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not disputing total contract receipts as per From 26AS at Rs.1

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Adilabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1203/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

money taxable U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the appeal of the appellant, only ... learned Assessing Officer U/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld CIT(A) is incorrect and cannot be sustained on facts

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1202/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

unexplained money taxable U/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the appeal of the appellant, only

S. Kalpana, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2902/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal invoking Section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 817 days in filing appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujan and ShriFor Respondent: Shri. Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 249(3)Section 69A

account of the delay of 817 days in filing appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that there was a delay of only 222 days

Sri. Chowdry, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Mysore

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

ITA 2418/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 250Section 44A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The learned AR before me contended that since the order of the ld. CIT-A is ex parte to the assessee

Bachira Uthaiah Poovaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 90

noncompliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section

Sree Basaweshwar Vyasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited Devihosur, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2395/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

deduction under section 80P of the Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the leaned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned AR of the assessee before me argued that the CIT(A) had erred in both the factual and legal aspects

Monish G Makhija, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

ITA 6116/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salukhe

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 39(1)Section 40A(3)

dismissed the appeal and sustained the above addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the above order passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. We have heard both the sides

Pratibha Vilas Patil, Mumbai vs. Nafc, Delhi

ITA 5537/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 144Section 147Section 69

proceedings and (c) upheld addition of INR.1,37,76,640/- made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Now the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above alongwith application for seeking condonation of delay of 276 2 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 days ... condonation of delay, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. It was submitted that the Appellant had made declaration of income under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. However, since

Purvish Mukesh Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 5522/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Cit (Appeals) Was Delayed By 25 Days Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. Assessment Year: 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh AngreFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 147Section 69Section 69B

filed on 06/05/2025. Thus, there was a delay of around 25 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). 4. In appeal before the Tribunal, the contention advanced on the behalf of the Assessee was that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without granting an opportunity ... granted opportunity to the Appellant to explain the reasons, the Appellant would have been able present his case for condoning delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal by filing affidavit and supporting documents. Given the period of delay involved in the present case was only 25 days, we find merit

Hemant Vishwas More, Kalyan vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, Kalyan

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

ITA 3913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrihemant V More V/S. Acit, Central Circle-3, Ravi Raj Apartment, बनाम Kalyan Khadakpada, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421306 Maharashtra-421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afwpm3020K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 143(2)Section 250

appeal was dismissed in limine vide order dated 18.03.2024. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. On the date of the hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 6. It is seen that the assessee’s appeals for subsequent

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

assessee by following the order of Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 (supra) and Revenue did not come up in appeal before the Tribunal on these issues by raising specific grounds. We have perused Form 36 filed by the Revenue for these two years in ITA No.2980/Mum/2024

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2979/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 1

assessee by following the order of Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 (supra) and Revenue did not come up in appeal before the Tribunal on these issues by raising specific 18 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 grounds. We have perused

Hdfc Bank Limited( As Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR

assessee by following the order of Co-ordinate Bench for Assessment Year 1998-99 (supra) and Revenue did not come up in appeal before the Tribunal on these issues by raising specific 19 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 grounds. We have perused

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)