← 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

Cane Development Council, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO Range-3(2), Hardoi-1

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

ITA 392/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Cane Development V. The Income Tax Officer Council Range 3 (2) C/O Ayyubi Chambers Hardoi Raniganj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaalc0292N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(3)

Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 13.06.2024 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the Secretary of the Cane ... receipt of the order on his email id could not be communicated to the assessee, resulting in delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It was prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it was beyond the control of the assessee

M/S Pstcl Csr Trust, Patiala vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 996/CHANDI/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)

circumstances of the case, the application of the assessee was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) and thereafter the matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal and the same was decided in favour of the assessee trust in that case. It was accordingly submitted that

Prasad Ashokchand Kunkulol, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 337/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.336 & 337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68

appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order countenanced the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the First

Prasad Ashokchand Kunkulol, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Aurangabad

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

ITA 336/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.336 & 337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68

appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order countenanced the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the First

Rameshwar Dnyaneshwar Bandewar, Parbhani vs. ITO Ward Hingoli, Hingoli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

belatedly, i.e., beyond the due date for filing of the return of income. 3 Rameshwar Dnyaneshwar Bandewar 4. Now the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order passed by ld. NFAC affirming the action of the CPC. 5. When the matter was called for, none appeared

Nandkumar Chandra, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

filed belatedly, i.e., beyond the due date for filing of the return of income. 3 Nandkumar Chandra 4. Now the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order passed by ld. NFAC affirming the action of the CPC. 5. When the matter was called for, none appeared

Ms Omkar Urban Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 1644/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 250Section 68

income of the assessee. 3. Assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC but remained unsuccessful. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. AO has passed the assessment u/s.144

Pitamber Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 700/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Pitamber Dealcom Pvt. Limited,…….…………Appellant P-497B, Hemanta Mukhopadhyay Sarani, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aafcp0114N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-12(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 23, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following issues:- 1(a) For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the reasons recorded

Senthilkumar, Pattukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

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

ITA 2778/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2778 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, No.41/D4, Mudipoondar Nagar, Vs. Ward-1, Aranthangi Main Road, Thanjavur. Pattukottai, Tamil Nadu-641601 [Pan: Arpps6436G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri G.Akash, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By Ms.V.Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1066440699(1) Dated 05.07.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

Section 143(2)Section 250

No.2778/Chny/2024 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 57 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse submitted that he is not very conversant with electronic working. The hearing notices were issued on old auditor's Email

DB 69 Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT Exemption, Chennai

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

ITA 2776/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2776 /Chny/2024 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: - Db 69 Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax No.112 Vairams Fourth Floor, Vs. (Exemption), Chennai Sir Theagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabtd4253B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Arjun Suresh, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Notice No.Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2024-25/1067718822(1) Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption). Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S Exm45 Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By Cit(E), Chennai. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Suresh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 80G(5)

Chennai. :- 2 -: 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 11 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a public charitable trust which had filed an application in Form

Namdeo Prabhakar Wandile, Hinganghat vs. ITO Ward-2, Wardha

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

ITA 367/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Shubham JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Namdeo Prabhakar Wandile 2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 183 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an Affidavit sworn on 06/06/2024, requesting the Bench

Daulat Prabhakar Wandile, Hinganghat vs. ITO Ward-2, Wardha

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

ITA 366/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Shubham JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Daulat Prabhakar Wandile 2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 152 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an Affidavit sworn on 06/06/2024, requesting the Bench

Sant Tukdoji Nagri Shahkari Pat Sanstha Limited, Hinganghat vs. ITO Ward - 2, Wardha

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

ITA 356/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144Section 234ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

hearing.” 3. Before us, at the very outset, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 209 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application dated nil requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reason

Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh Shikshan Prasarak Va Bahudeshiya S Buldana, Buldhana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(Exemption), Nagpur

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

ITA 333/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

Bahudeshiya S. Buldana 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application dated nil requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason

Prasad Dipakrao Belorkar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavvatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar TitarmareFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

based on the statements or The assessee not being satisfied by the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the arguments of rival parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities

Nikhil Shankarlalji Waghwani, Legal Heir of Late Shankarlalji Hotchandji Waghwani, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

appeal in this regard are dismissed.” The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee had furnished all the necessary documentary evidences before

Utkarsh Nagpur Z P Prathmik Shikshak Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Hence, the ground no. 4 filed by the assessee is allowed subject to the above.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, both the parties agree before me that the issue in hand is covered by the decision

Ashok Lakharam Vanjani, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 167/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)(vii)

Bench that in the event of Department’s decision is not acceptable to the assessee, the assessee be granted liberty to file fresh appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative has no objection in the submissions of the assessee. 4. I have heard the arguments of the parties, perused

Bombay Duck Dining Company Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1076/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, SR-
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36Section 40Section 68

Therefore, as soon as the assessee came to know about the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 367 days. Therefore, the delay caused in filing of appeal before the tribunal was beyond of the control

Korubilli Satti Babu, Tuni vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 502/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.502/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Korubilli Sattibabu V. Income Tax Officer 6-26-34, Konakachavari Street Tuni - 533401 Gavarapeta, Tuni Andhra Pradesh East Godavari - 533401 [Pan: Bfupk8553A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

assessee. Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.502/VIZ/2024 Korubilli Sattibabu 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of CIT (Appeals) NFAC is orbitrary and unjust. 2 The Learned Commissioner of Income tax NFAC