“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

Sh. Satnam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 282/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

Assessing 3. Officer as there was no compliance by the Assessee despite opportunities given by CIT(A). Aggrieved, the Assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Similarly, the ITO, Ward 6(4), Mohali issued another notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.8.2019 for the reason that

Bhavnaben Sanjaykumar Mistry, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5) Present ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1342/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr DR

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

assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that, • The assessee has paid stamp duty of Rs. 23,70,550/- (Rs. 20,50,550 plus

Vinpack Agro Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. ITO 4(1)(4) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 689/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that there is no record to prove that the assessee company was not doing business to that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur vs. Mahalaxmi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 979/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

Rule 8D and depreciation on luxury car. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... deleted and the Ground of Appeal is Allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the records. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that

Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Latur vs. ACIT (Exmp.) Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 951/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 57

grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 14 ITA No.951/PUN/2024, AY 2020-21 = 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

ITA 428/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

debited in the relevant financial year. 16. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee ... precedence, the ground of the appellant is allowed." 35. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 36. After hearing both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this

Shrirang Dattatraya Altekar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2592/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A Makawane

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. After hearing both the sides, we find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had given detailed reasoning for presenting

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 259/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan & Smt. Abarna CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

debited in the relevant financial year. 16. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee ... precedence, the ground of the appellant is allowed.” 35. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 36. After hearing both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 192 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 ... Accordingly, Grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.” 5 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of learned

Nilons Enterprises Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Ward 2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1600/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

proceedings. He accordingly, upheld the action of the JCIT. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied

Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (1) Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1428/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, 415/2 A, Shrine Complex, Somvar Peth, Pune -411011 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Pune Pan : Aaaah2281D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Deepak S. Sasar Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 05-11-2024 15-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- *1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.8,84,993/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P (2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Interest Income Earned From Deposit With Pdcc Bank. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P (2) (D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S.80P Of Commission Receipts Of Rs.53,52,723/- After Deducting The Salary Expenses Of Rs.3,00,202/- From The Total Commission Receipts Of Rs.56,52,925/-. Being The Same Income Is Received From The Mseb On Account Of Running Cash Counter For Mseb Bill Payments & The Same Is Treated As Income From Other Sources. 4. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

eyes of law and the same is Thus Ground No. 2 of Appeal is dismissed. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned issues ... which was earlier granted by the Assessing Officer. We observe that on similar grounds the assessee has filed appeals before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in ITA Nos.1521 & 1522/PN/2015, respectively. The Tribunal vide order dated

Mahle Behr India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

ITA 795/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri R D Onkar

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)

extent of Rs.3,38,82,341/-. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer / TPO / DRP, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order has not enhanced the income. He submitted that

Srinivasa Rao Bathini, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1182/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1181 & 1182/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Srinivasa Rao Bathini Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward – 1 Pan:Abypb0978P Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80C

payment of LIC premium and tuition fees. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the remand report dated 21/09/2023 submitted that, the Assessing Officer has verified the additional evidences

Srinivasa Rao Bathini, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1181/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80C

Sree Shirdi Sai Ram Samsthanam, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1088/HYD/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G. Hon’Bleshri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. M Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

filing revised Forms up to 30-06-2024. 4. Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(E), the assessee is, now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(E) is erred in rejecting application as non-maintainable, for simple technical

A1 - Animals Come First, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. (Exemption), Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1494/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(d)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

dated 23.03.2021. I.T.A. No.: 1494/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 A1-Animals Come First. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru ... appeal and without discussing the merits of the case. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. Page 2 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 1494/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 A1-Animals Come First. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the paper

Synergy Auto Inc, Sakinaka Andheri East vs. Income Tax Officer 26 (3) (3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4752/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

deposed that he came to know in respect of the impugned order only in September 2024 and took immediate steps to file this appeal before the Tribunal. We notice that this appeal was e-filed on 16.09.2024 against the impugned order dated 02.05.2023. In view of unrebutted grounds mentioned

ACIT CC 6(1), Bkc Mumbai vs. Gnp Consultancy and Solutions Private Limited, Thane

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4480/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & AdnyaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhula, CIT-DR & Shri

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 69C

further appeals gave partial relief to the assessee. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal Against the order of the CIT(A). The grounds raised by the Revenue and the assessee are as given below: ITA No. 4478/Mum/2024 for AY 2022-23 (Revenue) “1. Ground

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Gnp Consultancy and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Thane

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4479/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & AdnyaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhula, CIT-DR & Shri

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 69C

ACIT CC 6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Gnp Cunsultancy and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Thane

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4478/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & AdnyaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhula, CIT-DR & Shri

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 69C