“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

Amsteel Castings Private Limited, Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3129/CHNY/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3129/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 170ASection 250

absence of specific findings, Amsteel Castings Pvt. Ltd. :- 3 -: the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that as per the order of NCLT, the appointed date for the merger scheme

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Sri Arumuga Sugars Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2698/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2698/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, C.A *+For Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous on the ground that the order u/s.263 is held as invalid. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee challenged the order passed

Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

order was passed u/s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) making the additions as proposed in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the orders

Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

Turf Estate Jv, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6923/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 90A

upheld the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer in the first appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have also gone through the orders of the authorities below

Ripudaman Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. Commissioner (Exemption) of Income Tax-1961, New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 6397/DEL/2025[2026-2027]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2026-2027

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

well as 80G of the Act. He also cancelled the provisional registration/ approval granted vide orders dated 08.03.2023. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 | P a g e 6385 6397_DEL_2025_Ripudaman Charitable Trust 6. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that sufficient opportunity

Ripudaman Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 6385/DEL/2025[2026-2027]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2026-2027

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Naresh Aggarwal Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 6377/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)

rejected vide order dated 05.12.2024. Provisional registration granted earlier vide order dated 27.05.2021 was also cancelled. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee could not make requisite compliance even though the charitable activities are genuine

Naresh Aggarwal Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 6376/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)

ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Ecotech Limited, Punjab

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

ITA 6371/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69C

technical services was not bogus, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 22.07.2025. 4.1 Aggrieved, the revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. DR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal without giving the AO an opportunity to conduct

Surinder Kumar Malhotra, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

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

ITA 6370/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Sombir Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 68

persistent non-compliance, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 27.02.2025. 4.1 Aggrieved further, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee could not make requisite compliance before the lower authorities due to lack of knowledge

Jyoti Chauhan, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer Ward 6(1), Delhi

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

ITA 6368/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 154Section 250Section 68

issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 30.09.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that proper compliance before the lower authorities could not be made by the assessee

ACIT Cir-19(1), New Delhi vs. Shipra Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4474/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICAL MEMBER, SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

assessee and annulled the order passed u/s 153C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred present appeal before the Tribunal on the strength of following grounds of appeals: 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Ariba India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2705/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

account of transfer pricing and addition of Rs. 82,92,871/- on account of unexplained expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal who vide its order in ITA No. 4175/Del/2016 dated 18.06.2020 restored the matter to the file of TPO on the issue of Transfer ... further addition of Rs. 82,92,871/- was made towards unexplained expenses. 4. Against the said order, the assessee is again preferred appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

Emerald Gems Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 956/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 115BSection 145Section 250Section 68

confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the cash deposits represented proceeds of cash sales made prior to demonetization, duly recorded

Hle Engineers Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. The ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 250

confirmed these additions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In this case, the amount on account of PF has been disallowed owing

Bhanushankar Kasalshibhai Dave, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 927/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

years. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 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 reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee is a salaried teacher

Parmarth Trust, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

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

ITA 920/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kambleparmarth Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 43, Royal Park Society, Exemption Ward, Sumul Dairy Road, Surat. Katargam, Surat-395008. [Pan :Aaftp0343Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Raj Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. DR

Section 80G(5)(iii)

maintainable and rejected the same. Asst. Year : 2025-26 - 2– 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT

Parul Gauseva Jivdaya Trust, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

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

ITA 903/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kambleparul Gauseva Jivdaya Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 13-17, Vinayak Society-2, Exemption Ward, Near Swaminarayan Mandir, Surat. Punagam, Surat-395010. [Pan :Aaftp0326 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Raj Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. DR

Section 80G(5)(iii)

maintainable and rejected the same. Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT

Indian Red Cross Society Valsad District Branch, Valsad, Gujarat vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 725/SRT/2025[NA]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR

Section 80G(5)(iii)

rejected the said application and cancelled the provisional approval. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Indian Red Cross Society Valsad Dist Br Vs. CIT(E) Asst. Year : - - 2– 4. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from