← 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

Kakinada Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 270A

assessment year 2021-2022. ITA.No.1053/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 506 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee company ... this issue who has advised the assessee to file an appeal against the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has thus submitted that the assessee based on the advice of the Counsel has filed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli vs. Ponkumari Wind Farm, Kanyakumari

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2567/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2566 & 2567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2005-06 & 2006-07 & C.O. No.87 & 88/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A.Nos.2566 & 2567/Chny/2025] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Ponkumari Wind Farm, Income Tax, Vs. No.17/41D, Chunkankadai Circle-1, Aloor Road, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli Kanyakumari – 629 807. Pan: Aaffp 1746B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)/Cross Objector राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 41(1)

there is no loss to revenue. hence the grounds related to addition i.e. grounds 4-7 are allowed.” 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.DR submitted that the protective assessments are made in the hands of the assessee for the reason that the order against

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli vs. Ponkumari Wind Farm, Kanyakumari

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2566/CHNY/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2566 & 2567/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2005-06 & 2006-07 & C.O. No.87 & 88/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A.Nos.2566 & 2567/Chny/2025] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Ponkumari Wind Farm, Income Tax, Vs. No.17/41D, Chunkankadai Circle-1, Aloor Road, Nagercoil, Tirunelveli Kanyakumari – 629 807. Pan: Aaffp 1746B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)/Cross Objector राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 41(1)

there is no loss to revenue. hence the grounds related to addition i.e. grounds 4-7 are allowed.” 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.DR submitted that the protective assessments are made in the hands of the assessee for the reason that the order against

Deepak Kumar Yadav, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8579/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Sh. Deepak Kumar Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village-Kapriwas, Ward-2, Rewari, Dharuhera, Haryana Rewari-123401 Pan: Abrpy2885R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Narenrda Kumar Rajgharhia, Noida vs. ITO Ward 53 (3), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6353/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2011-12 Narender Kumar Rajgharhia, Vs. Ito, Ward 53(3), A-407, Block-A, Room No. 1505, Civic Centre, Sector-19, Noida-201301 New Delhi – 110 002 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aaepr8367F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

dated 23.01.2024 relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. It is noted that there is delay of 556 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and for this the assessee has filed the petition for condonation wherein, it was stated that the assessee is very old man of around ... sides and perusing the records, we are of the view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal, hence, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed further

Raja Tradelinks Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6342/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa Gami, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Arora, Sr. DR
Section 234Section 234ESection 250

holding that the fee u/s 234E has been rightly levied for delayed filing of Form 24Q. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has explained that the TDS return in Form 24Q had been originally filed before the due date

Lalit Kumar, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6304/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

appeal before Ld. CIT(A). As no compliance was made, the appeal was also dismissed ex-parte. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the notice u/s 148 is time-barred in view of the decision

Yashpal Grover, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 6280/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

assessee had failed to explain the source of cash deposits made in his bank accounts. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is carrying on the Prop. Business of selling vegetables on commission basis

Mukul Kumar Yadav, Gurgaon vs. CIT Appeals, NFAC

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

ITA 6275/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 68

during the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 16.01.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available

Jaiveer Nagar, Greater Noida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Noida, Noida

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

ITA 6270/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Raghuraj Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

multiple notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.08.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not present his case before Ld. CIT(A) and requested for remand

Sapna Jain, New Delhi vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-63, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6269/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Bhardwaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

which included the cash received on transfer of immovable property within the ambit of this section. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 Before us, Ld. AR has argued that the cash received from the sale deed of property transaction was directly paid

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6248/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

Vide order dated 15.03.2021, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that no proper opportunity was given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and the notices

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6247/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

Vide order dated 15.03.2021, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that no proper opportunity was given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and the notices

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6246/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

Vide order dated 15.03.2021, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that no proper opportunity was given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and the notices

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6245/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

Vide order dated 15.03.2021, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that no proper opportunity was given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and the notices

Sushma Shrestha, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Dr. Manas Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

Vide order dated 15.03.2021, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that no proper opportunity was given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and the notices

DCIT Central Circle 1 Delhi, Delhi vs. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd, Lucknow

ITA 4679/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
Section 142Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

identified with the grounds raised either by the appellant or by the respondent. In the present case the subject- matter of the appeal before the Tribunal was the reduction of tax rebate in respect of Rs.3,54,716. It is impossible to contend that the subject-matter of the appeal ... assessee had obtained relief before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to a particular extent. And this was objected to by the department in the appeal before the Tribunal. The applicability of section 34 of the Act was a general question raised by the assessee even before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

Electric Lamp and Component Manufacturers Association of India, New Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is allowed

ITA 4309/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalelectric Lamp & Component Cit (Exemption) Manufacturers Association Of Delhi. India, Vs. (Civic Centre Minto Road, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Delhi-110002). G-8/5 Sector-11, Opposite Sfs Apartment, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan-Aaate0234A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Dated 30.06.2025 Passed U/S 12Ab(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) Rejecting The Registration Applied By The Assessee U/S 12A Of The Act For The Period From Assessment Years 2021-22 To 2025-26. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Society Was Incorporated On 29.06.1970 & Registered U/S 12A Of The Act In Terms Of Registration Certificate Issued On 30.09.1986. Thereafter, Assessment For Assessment Years 2013-14 & Electric Lamp & Component Manufacturers Association Of India Vs. Ito 2015-16 Were Completed On 29.03.2016 & 11.12.2017 Respectively, Wherein Assessee Was Allowed Exemption U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee Was Granted Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Act For Assessment Year 2021-12 To 2023-24 Vide Order Dated 27.05.2021, Thereafter, Assessee Applied For Permanent Approval U/S 12A Which Was Rejected By Ld. Cit(E) Vide Order Dated 30.06.2025 & Further Cancel The Provisional Registration Granted From Assessment Year Onwards.

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

order dated 30.06.2025 and further cancel the provisional registration granted from Assessment Year onwards. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: A) That Ld. CIT Exemption vide impugned order passed us 12AB

Assertive Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4200/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 40

vide order dated 13.06.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. | Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income

New Star System Solution Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-18(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3585/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

both the additions made by the AO. 5. Hence, aggrieved by the impugned order of the first appellate authority, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal as under: - 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case