← 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

Govardhan Naidu Gummalla, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 170/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.169 & 170/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Shri Govardhan Naidu Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Gummalla, Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Actpg9082B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12 Hyderabad Dated 09/02/2023 & Pertains To A.Ys 2018-19 & 2019-20 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Govardhan Naidu Gummala 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the additional ground filed by the assessee is on the legality of additions made in the assessment order

Govardhan Naidu Gummalla, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 169/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.169 & 170/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Shri Govardhan Naidu Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Gummalla, Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Actpg9082B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12 Hyderabad Dated 09/02/2023 & Pertains To A.Ys 2018-19 & 2019-20 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Govardhan Naidu Gummala 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the additional ground filed by the assessee is on the legality of additions made in the assessment order