“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

Lifestyle and Media Holdings Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3714/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3714/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Lifestyle & Media Holding Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known As Ndtv Vs. C.R. Building, Lifestyle Holdings Limited) New Delhi. Plot No.09, Unit No. 055, Ground Floor Capia, Corporate Suites, Jasola, New Delhi-110025. Pan-Aadcn3076F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.P. Mall, Adv. Assessee By Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/12/2025 O R D E R [ Per Bench: All The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] For Ay 2014-15 To 1016017 & Having Common Issues, Therefore, They Are Dispose- Off By A Common Order. First, We Taken Assessee Appeal For Ay 2014-15 In Ita No. 64/Del/2019. Ita No.3714/Del/2024 & Lifestyle & Media Holdings Limited Vs. Dci

Section 143(3)Section 2(13)Section 71

confirmed the findings given by AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the assessment order dated

New Track Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2765/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred present appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition of tax and interest with

Bechtel Ltd, London vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

terms of Article 13 of Inida-UK treaty @ 10% alongwith surcharges on substantive basis. 7. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Bechtel Limited, London vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1816/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

Nitin Johari, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, the issues on the merits as raised vide ground nos

ITA 1530/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Nitin Johari, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3, 2Nd A-15, Floor, Sadhna New Delhi Enclave, South Delhi, New Delhi – 110 017 Pan No. Aajpj4136D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 02.06.2022, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee was allotted 60000 shares on 02.03.2012 of M/s Anukaran Commercial Enterprises ... case of Brij Bhushan Singal, similar addition from the sale of shares of the same company were held as bogus wherein, in second appeal before the Tribunal, the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 1483 & 1484/Del/2018 (AYrs. 2013-14 & 2014-15) vide order dated 7.12.2018 has deleted the addition by observing

Lifestyle and Media Holding Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 2(13)Section 71

Lifestyle and Media Holding Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(13)Section 71

Raj Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

reasonable cause for the delay; therefore, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, [the CIT(A)] erred ... appeal were dismissed on merits, as is mentioned. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the appeal was heard with the assistance

Shri Shah Afroze Hossain, Bhagalpur vs. Dy. CIT, Cent, Cir-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 711/PAT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.711/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Shah Afroze Hossain.….…………………....…………………....Appellant 12, Shahganjhi, Habibpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar-812006. [Pan: Aapph1112D] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Patna-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹75,56,770, Comprising The Income From Business Of ₹6,54,569, Long- Term Capital Gains: ₹49,60,293 & Income From Other Sources Of ₹19,35,912. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Carried Out On 29.12.2022 At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee Pursuant To A Warrant Of Authorisation Issued By The Director Of Investigation, Patna. During The Course Of The Search

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

issue relating to addition of ₹10,85,000 towards unexplained expenditure sustained. 4. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal raises the following substantive issues: I.T.A. No.711/PAT/2024 Shri Shah Afroze Hossain 1. Sustenance of addition on account of undisclosed business income 2. Sustenance of addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Jaswinder Kaur Grewal, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 69B

page 13 of the order and deleted the addition. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the very outset, it was brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the issue of extrapolation ... said addition was deleted by the CIT(A), following the order of "M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.", and the department had filed the appeal before the Tribunal bearing ITA No. 188/Chd/2025 and Cross Objection No.7/Chd/2025, wherein vide order, dated 09.09.2025. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of 3 the department following

M/S Akshaj Infra Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 725/CHANDI/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 153A(1)(b)Section 68

general in nature, requiring no separate adjudication at that stage. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld DR relied on the orders

T.P. Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2402/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd…....…………………....Appellant 53/B, 1St Floor, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Aaact9370R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata…..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.04.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 30.10.2017, Declaring A Total Income At Rs. 6,19,94,350/-. The Assessing Officer Found From The Tax Audit Report That The Assessee Has Paid Employees Contribution Of Rs.8,81,926/- Towards Pf & Towards Esi For Rs.1,12,067/- After The Due Date So The Delayed Deposit Of Pf Is Treated As Income Of Assessee As Per Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Read With Section Of 2(24)(X) & A

Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

consider the issue and rejected the rectification application filed by the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the present issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the various