← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I Noida, Noida vs. M/S Advant It Park Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal is allowed and order of the High Court is set aside

ITA 5334/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

appeal of the assessee by holding the entire income as business income. 7. Against the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cetral Circle-I, Noida vs. Advant It Park Private Limited, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5333/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)

appeal of the assessee by holding the entire income as business income. 7. Against the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Noida vs. M/S Advant It Park Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

appeal of the assessee by holding the entire income as business income. 7. Against the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Bhanwarlal Pareek, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4410/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Vide order dated 24.03.2025, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. Since

Myth Media Solution Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. AO, Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Noida, U.P

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

ITA 2280/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37(1)

appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to furnish complete details/evidences sought by Ld. CIT(A). Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR sought to file additional evidences in the form of delivery challans, transport receipts etc to establish the genuineness

Murari Lal Harish Chand Jaiswal Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Murari Lal Harish Chand Vs Dcit Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., 6043, Central Circle-31, Naya Bans, Chandni Delhi Chowk, Delhi-110006. Pan-Aaacm6428P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.30/10268/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2021 Passed U/S 153A Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Is A Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Tobacco Products & Derived Income From Profits & Gains From Business & From Capital Gain/Loss & Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2018, Declaring Income Of Inr 1,09,82,630/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Following Two Issues:- (I) Icds Compliance & Adjustment (Ii) Income U/S 56(2)(X)

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

proceedings u/s 153A of the Act and therefore, he confirmed the addition. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made

Harcharan Singh, Baghat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

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

ITA 21/ASR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 21/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harcharan Singh, Baghat Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Barzulla Crossing Arinagar, Srinagar. Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Bpfps0272H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 144Section 250

been claimed that the assessee was fully and wholly occupied with his father’s treatment, resulting in delay in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. The CIT (A) order dated 8th July, 2024, was supposed to have been appealed against within 6th September, 2024, but the appeal has been

Vijay Parbhakar, Batala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Batala

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

ITA 222/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 222/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Vijay Prabhakar, (Through Vs. Ito, Ward-1, L/H) 239, Phase-1, C/O Barnala. Prabhakar Food Products, South City, Batala. [Pan:-Adcpk5882D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Handa & Sh. Bhavesh Mahajan, Cas. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

cash book, and consequently, the addition has been reduced by the said amount. 6. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal praying for deletion of the balance remaining addition of Rs.7,74,515/-. 6.1 In course of hearing before the tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted

Misrilall Jain & Sons, Singhbhum West vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

expenses of ₹3,42,60,244, granting only an ad hoc relief of ₹10,00,000. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of the hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged escaped income

Hari Shanker Singh, Chutia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ranchi

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

ITA 358/RAN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.358/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hari Shanker Singh….….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant C/O S K Enterprises, Chutia, Anandpuri, Panchwati, Near Poddar Dharmshala, Jharkhand-834001. [Pan: Bdnps5665J] Vs. Ito, Ranchi……………………..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sunit Dasgupta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21 , 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 26.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 250

ground that the assessee failed to respond due to non-compliance during the appellate proceedings. 4. The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. However, despite issuance of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. We, therefore, in the interest of justice

Virendra Kumar Namdev, Indore vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 254/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147

filed supporting medical certificates. 11. The assessee has further stated that for the very same reasons, he was unable to file the present appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of the CIT(A). The delay

Fujiyama Power Systems, Parwanoo vs. ITO Parwanoo, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the penalty of Rs

ITA 977/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 68

Assessing Officer to quantify the penalty relatable to the sustained additions. 7. Against the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fundamental legal position that

Vimal Alloys Private Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. Jao the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Patiala, Punjab

ITA 890/CHANDI/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Vipen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Investigation Wing and that the Assessing Officer had valid jurisdiction over the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR for the assessee made detailed and elaborate submissions and assailed the orders

Biru Sharma, Safidon, Jind vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1378/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1378/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2018-19 Shri Biru Sharma, Vs The Ito, S/O Shri Bal Kishan, Ward-1, Purani Mandi, Jind. Safidon, Jind. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Chxps1434E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Ca. Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Physical Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 148Section 148A(1)

Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R PHYSICAL HEARING PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.02.2025 passed for assessment year

Sahirbahi Kothiya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2166/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Cit(A).

Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

money u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act may kindly be deleted. 8. Delay of 5 days caused in filing the appeal before the tribunal may please be condone. Delay condonation application is annexed separately. 9. Reopening of the assessment may please be held as time barred

Sheetal Kishinchand Tejwani, Pune vs. CIT(A) Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee by observing as under: 3 4 5 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in understanding the method of accounting followed by the and treating

Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 347/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12Section 143(2)Section 144Section 25Section 270A

accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.” 5 ITA No.347/PUN/2025, AY 2021-22 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee

Vikram Sugriv Kale, Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nanded

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

ITA 2833/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Vikram Sugriv Kale Ito, Ward 1, Nanded Vikram Stoves & Fabricators, Vs. Digvijay Construction, A 37, Midc, Osmanabad – 413501 Pan: Agapk8979L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit S Tapadiya Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit S TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 275

assessee by observing as under: 3 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1) Ld. CIT-A ought to have directed AO to pass order u/s 275(1A) by reducing the levy ... considering the fact that the quantum addition has already been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal against the such deletion, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer does not survive. Accordingly the same is directed to be deleted

Shree Chaitanya-Ram Foundation, Bavdhan Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2619/PUN/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar, CIT
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act also. 4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT-Exemption erred - (1) in holding

Shree Chaitanya-Ram Foundation, Bavdhan vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2618/PUN/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar, CIT
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act also. 4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT-Exemption erred - (1) in holding