“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

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

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

ITA 6876/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

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

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 8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6875/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

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

Ratan Kashiram Sachdev, Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (3) (1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5864/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh HemaniFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

dismissed the aforesaid appeal retreating the observations made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 7. On perusal of the Assessment Order, we find that

Commercial Transport Organisation, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 27(1), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4965/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Commercial Transport Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Organisation Income Tax - 27(1), 1St Floor, B 112, Navi Mumbai Arjun Centre, Govandi East, Mumbai - 400088 (Pan: Aagfc6565J) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077843575(1), Dated 26.06.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit, 27(1), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Hon Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.1,07,12,240/- Made By The Ld Ao, As Estimated Income, After Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The I.T Act 1961. The Addition Of Rs.1,07,12,240/- Being Not Warranted By Facts & In Law May Kindly Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)

assessee had itself accepted the shortcomings in the maintenance of books of accounts in the course of assessment proceedings. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record including written submission made by the ld. Counsel

Nikhil Ashok Shivdikar, Parel Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20 2 4 Mumbai, Lalbaug Parel

ITA 4639/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: him.

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

Share entered into by the parties were sham transaction undertaken to avoiding tax liability. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. 6. During the appellate proceedings both the sides have reiterated the stand taken before

Mayur Govindbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4178/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

proceedings was provided to the earlier chartered accountant. The confirmation letter goes on to states that since the time limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed under Section 263 had already expired and considering that that the Assessee had informed that the Assessee ... Assessee was stated to be completely dependent upon the chartered accountant for attending his tax matters who advised the Assessee not the file appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had overturned the decision

Lajayems Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawallajayems Jewellers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of G-28, Simla House, Nepean Sea Vs. Income Tax, Circle 5 (2) (2), Road, Mumbai - 400036 Mumbai - 400020. Pan – Aaacl 1458 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya - Advocate Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. D.R. Date Of Institution Of Appeal : 10.01.2025 Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23..12.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per : Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 13.12.2024 Vide Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya - AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, SR. D.R

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 254(1)

books of accounts. On the basis of such observation upheld the action of AO. Further aggrieved, the Assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the Assessee and Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

present year, ld. Assessing Officer allowed set off of Rs.191.36 crores which was revised subsequently to Rs.353.54 crores. Hence, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal claiming credit for foreign taxes paid in AY 2012-13 on the profits of its foreign branches AY 2013-14 which ... purpose of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and thus, this ground of appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 24. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai who decided the aforesaid issue in favour

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

Landmark Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi

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

ITA 5910/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Ms Renu Jauhrilandmark Exim Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 3, Munirka Marg, Vasant Central Circle-5, Vihar, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcl0508N

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43B

inadvertently disallowed u/s 43B of the Act by the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal wherein the sold substantive issue relates to disallowance of Rs. 7,66,605/- u/s 43B of the Act. 4. Brief facts related to the issue are that

Ashok Chaturvedi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5156/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Ms Renu Jauhriashok Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Dcit, 305, 3Rd Floor, Pamposh Central Circle-2, Enclave, Greater Kailash- Noida 1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacpc1661P

For Appellant: Shri Vir Sain Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234A(1)Section 250(6)

dismissed and these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ” 5. Aggrieved further, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that in the light of judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case

Nirjeet Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5151/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Nirjeet Singh Vs Ito Ward 52(1) 117, Palika Bazar New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablps0458C

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 274

Rs.10,69,286/- is confirmed. Thus the grounds of appellate no. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR has vehemently argued that the assessee was entitled to get immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA

Arvind Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Uttar Predesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5146/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Arvind Jain Vs Ito Ward 5(1)(1) 487, 2Nd Floor, Haveli Haider Kuli, G Budh Nagar Chandni Chowk Noida New Delhi- 110006 Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acapj9132E

For Appellant: Shri Sandeip S Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 234ASection 250

alleged bogus purchases. Vide order dated 25.06.2025, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4 | P a g e ARVIND JAIN VS. ITO WARD 5(1)(1), UTTAR PRADESH 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that

Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1), New Delhi vs. M/S Oval Investment Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5772/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito Vs M/S. Oval Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ward-19(1) B-97, 2Nd Floor, Amritpuri, Delhi Garhi East Of Kailash, Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaaco0373R Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, Adv. & Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.10.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-7/11026/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2017, Declaring Loss Of Inr 1,25,243/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected Under Cass & Assessment Was Completed By Making Additions Towards The Profit Of Inr 1,17,08,931/- On The Sale Of Equity Shares & Profit From F&O Segment Of Inr 86,70,879/- & Further Dividend Income Of Inr 3,38,060/- As Income Of The Assessee & After Reducing The Amount Of Service Tax, Net Addition Of Inr 1,80,37,381/- Was Made By The Ao. Besides This, An Addition Of Inr 2,33,06,326/- Is Made Regarding Credit Balance Appearing In The Name Of M/S Rks Distributor Pvt. Ltd. U/S 68 Of The Act & Further, An Addition Of Inr 9,05,423/- Was Made U/S 14A Of The Act. Accordingly, Total Income Of The Assessee Stood Assessed At Inr 4,21,23,887/-.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

deleted the other two additions made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in deleting the additions totaling

Jakson Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-4, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 5014/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

assessee in respect of some of the grounds. Aggrieved with the order, both the revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal before the Tribunal. Although multiple grounds have been raised in both these appeals, we first take up the legal ground relating to absence of approval

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Jakson Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 5010/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Jakson Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4987/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal, SR. DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 15Section 250Section 37(1)Section 69CSection 80G

DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

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

deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the disallowance ... Revenue is maintainable on this issue. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions wherein the Courts/Tribunal have held that appeal before the Tribunal is not maintainable where assessing officer has accepted the issue in remand report furnished before CIT(A)  Jivallal Purtapshi

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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