“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

Rimple Saxena, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2413/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2413/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rimple Saxena, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Sai Villa, Plot No.114, Panvel Flat No.102, Sector-I, Vijay Marg, New Panvel – 410 206 Maharashtra Pan : Bdjps3014H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M. VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

case of assessee when the demand is raised through show cause notice. These are the reasons which led to delay in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. On going through the averments made in the affidavit and in the absence ... Gain’. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that is assessee is presently staying in United States of America. He further

Sujit Arun Taware, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Sangli

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2381/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2381/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri UmeshkumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

above, the delay is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed.” 4 Sujit Arun Taware 5. Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly submitted there was delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which

Babasaheb Bandgar, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Solapur

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

ITA 2231/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2231/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s case could not be represented before the ld.CIT

Shree Construction, Pune vs. ITO, Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 2094/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2094/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh PatniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

ground that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence and other satisfactory explanations. 3 Shree Construction 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstance prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme

Sarika Zende, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1775/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Jagtap (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 270ASection 274Section 43B

confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.1775/PUN./2024 8. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the quantum appeal has been restored to the file

Income Tax Officer, Dhule vs. Sharad Anandrao Deore, Dhule

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

ITA 996/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)

profit at 8% of the gross contract receipts. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Sew Krishnagar Baharampore Highways Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.193/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sew Krishnagar Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1) Baharampore Highways Hyderabad Limited Hyderabad [Pan :Aapcs5143Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad & Shri K.Rajendra Kumar, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 9 Days. It Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining Reasons Thereof. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Having Regard To The Reasons Given In The Petition, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad &For Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 154Section 21Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)

Form 3CD and as reported by the tax auditor. 5. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance

Quark Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1212/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2017-18 Quark Enterprises Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacq3370N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Ar Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2025

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

incurred by the assessee cannot be allowed as revenue expenses. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds of appeal. 5. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us stating that

Shyamal Kundu, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1112/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dated 18.03.2024, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 30.11.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred in confirming the addition on account of late deposit ... accordingly confirmed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the appeal order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made were examined. In respect of the disallowance made, the assessee has furnished submission as below

Dyaneshwari Multi State Urban Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6093/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 153A

thus, dismissed the appeals for want of compliance of specific direction of the Hon'ble ITAT. Contesting on this dismissal, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel demonstrated that there is no dispute on the fact of deposit of impugned cost by the assessee which

Dyaneshwari Multi State Urban Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6092/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 153A

Dyaneshwari Multi State Urban Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6091/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 153A

Dyaneshwari Multi State Urban Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6090/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 153A

Nitin Goel, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3142/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

vide order dated 17.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- A. “Because the impugned order has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and prevailing

Mohan Kumar Sharma, Uttar Pradesh vs. Ward 5 (1) (5), Noida, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1966 और 1967/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Kunal Pandey, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 80I

books of account nor has complied with the requirement of audit prescribed u/s.80IA(7) of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA 4 ITA Nos.1819, 1966 & 1967/DEL/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15) no.973/Del/2015. The Tribunal after examining the facts for the assessment year

Income Tax Officer, Shillong vs. The Little Stars Trust, Assam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 64/GTY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.64/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Addl/JCIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee as the appellant has submitted Form No.10B on 07.11.2022. 3. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order passed by ld.Addl/JCIT(A). 4. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite

Suman Ahmed, Gauripur vs. ITO, Ward- Dhubri, Dhubri

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

ITA 45/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kushal SoniFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Sekar Das

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

days. The ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Suman Ahmed 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record placed before us. A perusal of impugned order would reveal

S.M. Lime Industries, Guwahati, Assam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 37/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.37/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

loan credits in respect of 11 of them are held as unexplained credits u/s.68 of the Act. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A). 6. Before us, referring to detailed paper book containing 222 pages, firstly ld. Counsel

Sishu Bikash Kendra, Manik Nagar, R G Baruah Road vs. ITO W-1(2), Guwahati, Christian Basti

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

ITA 142/GTY/2024[2023-24 ]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.142/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

merits, thereby cancelling the provisional registration granted to the assessee trust. 3. Aggrieved with such order of ld.CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before us. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration

Rama Katowal Chetry, Golaghat vs. ITO Ward Golaghat, Golaghat

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

ITA 106/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

invalid being defective as the defect was not cured despite being specifically pointed out to the appellant.” 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. ITA Nos.105 and 106/GTY/2024 Rama Katowal Chetry 5. When the case was called