← 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

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

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

ITA 2433/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

/PUN/2024 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeals but failed to get any relief. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following common grounds : “On facts and in law, without prejudice to each other : 1. The Ld. AO erred

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

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

ITA 2432/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

/PUN/2024 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeals but failed to get any relief. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following common grounds : “On facts and in law, without prejudice to each other : 1. The Ld. AO erred

Dnyaneshwar More Bigarshet Gramin Pat Puravatha Sahakari Sanstha Ltd, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2397/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2397/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Dnyaneshwar More Bigarshet Gramin Pat Puravatha Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. 5. At the outset, I find that the appeal is time barred ... disbelieve the averments made therein, I am of the view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. I therefore in the larger interest of justice condone the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal in light

Sandesh Vasantrao Pawar, Satara, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara, Maharashtra

ITA 2379/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2379/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rahul KavaleFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 45Section 53A

assessee’s version made therein, I am of the opinion that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. I therefore in the larger interest of justice condone the delay of 76 days and proceed for adjudication of appeal

Suhel Inayatulla Punekar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2375/PUN/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act alleging that the sum of Rs.10.00 lakh is unexplained cash credit. 5. Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book containing 73 pages brought my attention to the confirmation letter

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

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

ITA 1776/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1776/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable, without condoning the delay. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the appeal is called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with

Surat Textiles Export, Mumbai vs. ITO, 32(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5882/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am Surat Textiles Export Ito-32(1)(1) 217, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 102 Shivam Building, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, J B Nagar, Andheri (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai Mumbai- 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Abqfs 2785 R (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant By : Shri Tushar Nagori Respondent By : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date Of Hearing : 01.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 271(1)(c)

appeal has already been disposed of. Immediately, the assessee took steps to obtain a copy of the appeal order and filed the appeal before the Tribunal, belatedly. Thus, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to bona fide reasons. 4. Having considered the submissions

Nandi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer Appeal, Vijayapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 447/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri. Chetan V Chougale & Sri Praveen P Ghali, CAFor Respondent: Sri. A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT - DR
Section 115JSection 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Page 8 of 11 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 05.03.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed the paper book comprising of 136 pages containing therein written submission, Annexure A – D, Order

Irene Pereira, Udupi vs. ITO Ward- 1&Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 2273/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri. Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 147Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 69

Supreme Court & High Courts. 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 62 pages enclosing therein copies of notices, Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, assessee

People Tree Chits Private Limited, Chamarajpet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2270/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 156Section 249Section 249(4)Section 250Section 69A

infructuous and is, therefore dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the AO has passed an ex-parte assessment under section 147 r.w.s

Meerams Overseas Private Limited, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 1975/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Meerams Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.471 Maruthi Nilaya 1St Cross, Ward – 1, Pavagada Road, Challakere, Davanagere. Chitradurga – 577 522. Pan : Aadcm 8322 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rattehalli Srikanta Murthy Badari Prasad, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Ex-Parte Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067240065(1)] Dated 01.08.2024 On The Ground That Addition Confirmed By The Cit(A) Of Rs.66,50,290/- Towards Non-Furnishing Of Proof Of Cost Of Improvements While Calculating Capital Gains. The Assessee On 07.02.2015 Sold A Property For A Total Value Of Rs.1,25,00,000/- & It Was Shown As Full Value Of Consideration Received-. The Property Was Purchased On 21.06.2004 For A Total Value Of Rs.25,97,466/- & Claimed Indexed Cost Of Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Rattehalli Srikanta Murthy Badari Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

response from the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 16 days. 4. We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 16 days. The date ... communication of the Order is 01.08.2024 to the assessee as per Form No.36 and appeal fee paid by the assessee for filing the appeal before the Tribunal on 19.09.2024. However, the assessee filed appeal on 16.10.2024 and Form 36 has been signed by the assessee on 10.10.2024. Having heard both

Hakam Fluid Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

terms of Article 13 of Inida-UK treaty @ 10% alongwith surcharges on substantive basis. 7. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Mehrunnisan Sherwani, Okhla vs. Income Tax Officer W 28(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4728/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

granted part relief to the assessee deleting certain additions/disallowances. Now, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the additions confirmed/deleted by the First Appellate Authority in their respective appeals for the impugned assessment year. 5 Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. ITA No. 1977/DEL/2013 (A.Y.2009-10 ... decided in AY 2009-10. The Revenue 26 Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. ITA No. 1977/DEL/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) & Other Appeals carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal for AY 2009-10 in ground no. 8 of appeal. Since, the facts are identical, the findings given by us while adjudicating ground

Sms Concast Ag, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1444/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80GSection 80HSection 80I

dated 15-11-2018 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the deduction u/s 80HHC and 80IA of the Act has been claimed on the basis

M/S. Prestige Avenues Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-VII, Hyderabad

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

ITA 741/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.741/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2022-23) Shri Bharat Kumar Jain Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Premchand, Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aqvpp1066C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 21.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2022-23 On 30.07.2022 Declaring Income Of Rs.3,86,750/-. The Telangana State Police Seized Cash Of Rs.7,35,000/- From The Assessee After Following

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 250(6)

before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of assessee. After hearing the Ld. DR, I find that the learned

Sureshbhai Raghubhai Thorat, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 426/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.426/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sureshbhai Raghubhai Thorat, Vs. The Ito, Siddharth Villa, At Post Ozar, Ward – 7, Mota Pondha B.O., Valsad – Vapi 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acapt3507F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/01/2025

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 69

prove investments was not discharged by assessee. Hence, appeal was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant did not respond to the calls and reminders of the ld. AR who had filed appeal for the assessee. Therefore, he withdrew

Varahalamma Pydi (Late), Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 348/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varahalamma Pydi Late, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Bjhpp9886J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 54F

assessee and upheld the decision of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the Facts and circumstances of the case ... would not be more than Rs.2 lakhs. Having said so, one aspect needs to be pointed out, which was missed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal as well while deciding the case in favour of the assessee. The compensation of Rs.2 lakhs is in respect of only the "excess

Shri Mahendra Ishwardas Patel, Mokhasan, Kalol vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 1891/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

delay in filing of appeal before him. 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 delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to the COVID

Darshil Chandravadan Shah, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1355/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

been carefully perused. No evidence has been tendered by the appellant in appeal proceedings…” Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of 149 days. The assessee has not filed any affidavit before the Tribunal specifying the reason for the delay while

Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust(Mgsamt), Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose…”

ITA 1077/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Ms Arti N Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT.DR
Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Section 80G of the Asst.Year NA - 3– I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. We have perused the facts on record and the provisions of the Act along with the judicial precedents on the issue. 4. The sequence