← 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

Jani Properties Private Limited, Raigad vs. DCIT, Panvel, Circle-Panvel

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

ITA 2168/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ajinkya M VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50C

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 203 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation ... sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On facts and in law, 1] The assessee requests for condonation of delay in filing the appeal since

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Smt. Asha B. Kadam, Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1896/PUN/2024[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 11 days in filing of these appeals before the Tribunal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with 3 IT(SS)A Nos.39 & 40/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.1894 to 1896/PUN/2024 ... 40/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.1894 to 1896/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.607 to 611/PUN/2025 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in IT(SS)A No.39/PUN/2024 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Smt. Asha Bhagwanrao Kadam, Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1895/PUN/2024[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 11 days in filing of these appeals before the Tribunal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with 3 IT(SS)A Nos.39 & 40/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.1894 to 1896/PUN/2024 ... 40/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.1894 to 1896/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.607 to 611/PUN/2025 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in IT(SS)A No.39/PUN/2024 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Smt. Asha Bhagwanrao Kadam, Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1894/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271DSection 271E

heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 11 days in filing of these appeals before the Tribunal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed condonation applications along with 3 IT(SS)A Nos.39 & 40/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.1894 to 1896/PUN/2024 ... 40/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.1894 to 1896/PUN/2024 ITA Nos.607 to 611/PUN/2025 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in IT(SS)A No.39/PUN/2024 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ITO, Ward - 40(1), Kolkata vs. Jugal Kishore Bhagat, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1981/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jugal Kishore Bhagat ………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 3B, Trimurti Apartment, 139, Dakshindari Road, Sreebhumi, Kol-700048.. [Pan: Aikpb8527H] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 362 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 250Section 251Section 264

order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) and for the same Jugal Kishore Bhagat order, the assessee had already filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had already decided the appeal in favour of the assessee vide ITA No.2612/Kol/2024 dated 16.10.2025. The ld. AR submits that

Rajeshkanna, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-4(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1047/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 115Section 115BSection 132Section 143(1)Section 144

115BB of the Act. 7. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Id.AR for the assessee contended that Online rummy is a game of skill and not a game of chance and there were

Mahesh Pyarelal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle 34(2), Mumbai

ITA 7218/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 147

seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying affidavit we are of the view that the Assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others ... Assessee. Therefore, accepting the explanation offered by the Assessee to be reasonable, we condone the delay of 494 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 6. As regards merits of the additions is concerned, the Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.7178/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year

Mahesh Pyarelal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle 34(2), Bandra Kurla Complex

ITA 7217/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 147

seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying affidavit we are of the view that the Assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others ... Assessee. Therefore, accepting the explanation offered by the Assessee to be reasonable, we condone the delay of 494 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 6. As regards merits of the additions is concerned, the Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.7178/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year

Mahesh Pyarelal Sharma, Juhu Andheri West vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 34(2), Mumbai

ITA 7178/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: notices for assessment were received and had commenced treatment for the same. 5. That I was employed out of Mumbai and had to travel to Mumbai for short visit to take her to hospital for treatment and hence was unable to attend to the notices and income details during the assessment proceedings. Further, I was also mentally disturbed, leading to additions being made in the assessment. 6. That I had filed submissions before the Ld CIT(A) on to 10/04/2019. 7. That I had filed all submissions

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 147

seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying affidavit we are of the view that the Assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others ... Assessee. Therefore, accepting the explanation offered by the Assessee to be reasonable, we condone the delay of 494 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 6. As regards merits of the additions is concerned, the Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.7178/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7070/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 is Partly Allowed” 11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 3 above. 12. We have heard both the sides, and have perused the material on record including the orders

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7069/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 is Partly Allowed” 11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 3 above. 12. We have heard both the sides, and have perused the material on record including the orders

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7068/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 is Partly Allowed” 11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 3 above. 12. We have heard both the sides, and have perused the material on record including the orders

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7067/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 is Partly Allowed” 11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 3 above. 12. We have heard both the sides, and have perused the material on record including the orders

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7066/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 is Partly Allowed” 11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 3 above. 12. We have heard both the sides, and have perused the material on record including the orders

DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7065/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 is Partly Allowed” 11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 3 above. 12. We have heard both the sides, and have perused the material on record including the orders

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7064/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2014-15 is Partly Allowed” 11. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 3 above. 12. We have heard both the sides, and have perused the material on record including the orders

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. AO Ward 3(2), Thane

ITA 6947/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147

appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed vide Order dated,04/08/2025. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee had preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. 7. By way of Ground No. 3 it has been contended on behalf of the Assessee that

Rama Sivaraman, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 6946/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev N. LFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147

appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed vide Order dated,04/08/2025. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee had preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. 7. By way of Ground No. 3 it has been contended on behalf of the Assessee that

Citizencredit Co-Operative Bank Limited (Mahim Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) Ward 1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6440/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)

upheld and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned authorized representative (Id. AR) of the assessee filed paper books, enclosing various details and documents submitted before the lower authorities. He also filed

Citizen Credit Co-Operative Bank Ltd (Vakola Branch), Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6393/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

upheld and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned authorized representative (Id. AR) of the assessee filed paper books, enclosing various details and documents submitted before the lower authorities. He also filed