← 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

Badshah Abdul Patel, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2249/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2249/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Badshah Abdul Patel, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Fulshewra, Aurangabad-423702 Aurangabad Maharashtra Pan : Akapp5853G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 44A

preferred appeal before the ld. NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee

Mr Nagarajan Chandrashekhar, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward-2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Modi, CA (Virtually appear)
Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order passed by the AO and the DRP confirmed the income assessed by the AO in the draft assessment order. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO. 4. There is a delay of 503 days in filing the appeal before

Seadrill International Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4700/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 270ASection 44B

assessee under section 44BB of the Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. 4. The ld. AR submitted that

Shell International Petroeum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Ruling. The DRP also confirmed the treatment of usage charges of SUN Maintenance Software as royalty. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. 4. We heard the parties and perused the material

Sri Madhappa Siva, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2327/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2327/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Madhappa Siva, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.16, Vs. Ward-1, Vivekanandha Nagar, Hosur. Avalapalli Road, Hosur – 635 109. Pan: Dghps 6254J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

u/s.69A of the Act to Rs.21,64,516/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The submissions made before the CIT(A) and the relevant annexures which was furnished before the CIT(A) are placed on record

Ankalan Web Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1404/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Waseem Ahmed & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Rajendra Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69B

assessee and the additions made is confirmed. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of CIT(A) dated 10.06.2024, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 211 pages enclosing therein copies of written submission, copy of acknowledgement of reply filed before

Harpal Singh Harpura, Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4804/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 68

appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition so made. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Pallavi Pal, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(4), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 4766/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 68

disallowance and deleted the additions made u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue’s is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Davinder Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 746/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Hearing : 06.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 24.06.2024 passed for assessment year

M/S Surya World Educational Research and Charitable Institute, Rajpura vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 877/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148

Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 10.06.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was presented before the Tribunal

Pawan Kumar, Gaya vs. ITO-Ward 3(2), Gaya

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 275/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 275/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Pawan Kumar,………………..…….....…………Appellant New Taradih, Bodhgaya, Gaya-824231, Bihar [Pan:Aglpk4382Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Ward-3(2), Gaya Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 07, 2025 O R D E R

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 474 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since

Suryadeo Prasad, Siwan vs. ITO Ward-2 (3), Siwan

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

ITA 82/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 30.10.2019. I.T.A. No.: 82/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suryadeo Prasad. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1 For that the ex parte order passed by the learned

Archana, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (1), Patna

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

ITA 338/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the ld. Sr. DR. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1.1 For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred

Manik Pal, North 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1968/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

assessment order u/s 147/144/144B of the Act, dated 14.03.2023. I.T.A. No.: 1968/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manik Pal. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “(1) That under the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld AO initiated the reopening proceedings by issuing

Viswanadh Kandula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

Tyres P Ltd 5. Aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and no arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee in support of these grounds. Therefore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

towards unsecured loans taken from M/s.Metalika Industries. 32. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee and the Revenue are now in appeal before the Tribunal. 33. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground nos.2 to 5 of assessee appeal and ground no.2 of Revenue

Iswar Chand Dubey, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68 (1), Delhi

ITA 2985/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

challenging the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s RAAS upon approval by the competent authority filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Delhi, vide ITA No.3151/Del/2011 and 2415/Del/2011 for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. But as on date of the reopening ... secondly his directions to tax the said amount in the hands of the assessee Shri Chetan Seth, the assessee (M/s RAAS) filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.12.2018 in ITA No. 3123/Del/2010 and 3815/Del/2011 (assessee’s appeal

Punit Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Delhi

ITA 2983/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

challenging the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s RAAS upon approval by the competent authority filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Delhi, vide ITA No.3151/Del/2011 and 2415/Del/2011 for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. But as on date of the reopening ... secondly his directions to tax the said amount in the hands of the assessee Shri Chetan Seth, the assessee (M/s RAAS) filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.12.2018 in ITA No. 3123/Del/2010 and 3815/Del/2011 (assessee’s appeal

Fotdi Pashupalan Mandal, Fotdi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 64/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.64/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ Fotdi Pashupalan Mandal The Income Tax Officer, Fotdi, B.O, Fotdi, Ward 1, Vs. Kachchh -370040 Income Tax Office, Plot No. 32, Sector – 3, Nr. Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Gujarat- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaaaf4643B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"क" ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jignesh Parikh, Ld. Ar ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 06/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shridinesh Monhan Sinha, Judicialmember : Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 28/11/2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

delay condone in filing appeal. 6. We have heard both the party and perused the record. We note that the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal was due to the fact that CA was miss-directed whether the appeal has to be filed electronically or manually. Further, CA approached

Jankalyan Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit Asond, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2439/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Others Vs.CIT 123 taxman.com 161 and Totagars Cooperative Sale Society Vs. ITO 188 taxmann.com 282 (SC). 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following solitary ground : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred