← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ram Prakash Bhatia, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-05, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1481/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in terms of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. AO has erred in passing an order u/s 147 r.w.s

Ram Prakash Bhatia, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-05, Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1480/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in terms of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. AO has erred in passing an order u/s 147 r.w.s

Ram Prakash Bhatia, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-05, Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1479/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in terms of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. AO has erred in passing an order u/s 147 r.w.s

Ram Prakash Bhatia, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-05, Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1478/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in terms of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. AO has erred in passing an order u/s 147 r.w.s

Ram Prakash Bhatia, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-05, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1477/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in terms of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. AO has erred in passing an order u/s 147 r.w.s

Pradip Naik, Goa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 43, New Delhi

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

ITA 1497/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pradip Naik Vs Ito Bungalow No.25, International Goa Housing Board, Taxation-2(2)(2) Behind Sai Service Station, New Delhi Bardex, North Goa-403521 Pan-Afvpn7030H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (Through Vc) & Ms. Sakshi Goyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-43, [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 10054/2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 17.12.2019 U/S 144(1)/147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act. The Ao Had Information In His Possession That Assessee Had Made Deposits Of Inr 3,75,00,000/- In The Bank Account But Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 28.03.2019. Thereafter, Since The Assessee Had Not Participated In The Proceedings Nor Made Any Compliance, Ao Has Held That Investments Made In Mutual Funds Totaling To Inr 3,25,00,000/-, Source Of Which Remained Unexplained & Accordingly, Made The Addition Of Such Amount Made U/S 69B Of The Act.

Section 144Section 144(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69B

appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Cargill Incorporated, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 1800/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1800/धिल्ली/2021(नि.व. 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(1), Civic Centre, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 बिाम Vs. Cargill Incorporated, B-25, First Floor, Nirlac House Qutub Industrial Area, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Delhi 110016 Pan Aaccc-4786-G अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Agarwal, Advocate सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Nikhil Agarwal, Advocate

decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the preceding assessment years. The department accepted the decision of CIT(A) and no appeal to the Tribunal was filed by the AO in AY 2009-10 to AY 2013-14. In AY 2014-15, the issue of treating corporate ... addition holding that Corporate IT Recharges are in the nature of reimbursement and not taxable as Royalty. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.6395/Del2017, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.02.2022 dismissed the appeal of Revenue following the Rule of consistency. The Revenue carried

Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 691/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Magnifique Gems Private Limited Income Tax Officer, 105 Rajshree Building, Maniyara Ward-1(1)(4) Sheri Na Naka, Surat, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Income Tax Gujarat- 395003 Colony, Athwa, Surat, Gujarat- 395001 Pan No. Aagcm 5160 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

account of unexplained credits are hereby confirmed and these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way grounds as reproduced above. 5 Magnifique Gems Private Limited 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged

Green Mumbay Lions Education Trust, Na vs. Arivs.Exemption Ward, Surat, Income-Tax Office Surat

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

ITA 547/SRT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.547/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Green Mumbay Lions Education Vs. Ito, Trust, Exemption Ward, Opp – Ratnakar Society, C/O Sgm Surat Shiroya English School, Chhapra Road, Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aatg8361Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234A

Therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO, CPC. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has filed a paper book including tax computation, audited financials, form 10BB, details of year-wise

Hiteshbhai Rameshbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO Ward, 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 484/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hiteshbhai Rameshbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, 466 Kanbivad, Goddha Mahuwa, Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Tax Taluka Valod, Dist. Surat 394630 Vs. Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Gujarat, Building, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394601 Pan No. Avdpp 6788 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-DR

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

assessee‟s contentions and dismissed the appeal. 3.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced hereinabove. 4. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1-101. 5. Ground

Kanchan Devi Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 480/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 68

however, upheld the finding of the AO and confirmed his order on both the counts. Hence, the assessee has come in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Kanchan Devi Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 68

however, upheld the finding of the AO and confirmed his order on both the counts. Hence, the assessee has come in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Gopal Mittal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Gopal Mittal, Vs. Ito, 1041, 1St Floor, Jash Textile Market, Ward – 1(1)(1), Ring Road, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aempm3251M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

Hence, he dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted a paper book containing 44 pages, which includes demand notice and computation sheet, notice u/s 270A issued

Ms Kalamandir Jewellers Ltd., Surat vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1069/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved Ms Kalamandir Jewellers Ltd. 4 ITA No. 1069/SRT/2024 by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced hereinabove. 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book comprising pages

Bhikhabhai Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 746/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2017-18 Bhikhabhai Ramanbhai Patel The Ito, C/O. M/S.Bhikhalal Ramanlal Patel Vs Ward-3(2)(1) Nr.Borring, St Road, Sanand Ambawadi Pan:Aehpp 2121 A Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, ld.SR.DR

days. A separate application has been filed for condonation of delay. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 2 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.8 ... confirmed the addition so made by the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. I have heard rival submissions and gone through the record. The case of the assessee is that the assessee had taken loan of Rs.20.00

Lingannagari Parinitha, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 990/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Rajnish PissayFor Respondent: Sri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 276 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition seeking for condonation of delay along with affidavit 2 ITA.No.990/Hyd./2025 explaining the reasons for the delay ... relevant medical certificates and reports in support of his contention and pleaded for condonation of delay of 276 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly opposed for condonation of delay, however, did not dispute the factual aspect

Padmakshi Chakraborty, Behala Parnasree vs. Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, Gariahat Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2279/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satender Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69

purchase of property at Rs.32,00,000/- and stamp duty/registration charges of Rs.3,60,307/-. 5. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee has booked

Sukla Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1987/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, &For Respondent: ShriPradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.DR

Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 153(1)Section 69

jurisdictional and substantive grounds. The addition of Rs. 3,76,74,893/- under LTCG is sustained. 8. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. Ld. AR before us submitted that the assessment framed by the AO is hopelessly

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mubmai

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

ITA 6878/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2013 and thereafter the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which then set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. AO for passing a speaking order and for denovo assessment vide

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6877/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2013 and thereafter the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which then set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. AO for passing a speaking order and for denovo assessment vide