“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

Deepalaxmi Nagari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sangamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

ITA 2322/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)(a)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

claim of deduction u/s 80P(1)(a)(i). 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The ld CIT-A (NFAC) erred in denying claim for deduction

Vasavi Club, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 994/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 115TSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

limitation, without adjudicating the grounds on merits.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal

Patel Sew Joint Venture, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made ... claimed in the return of income. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 17. The learned CIT-DR for the Revenue, Ms. U. Mini Chandran, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not granting

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Patel Sew Jointventure, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 742/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

ITO., Ward 14(1), Hyderabad vs. Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

order dated 16.08.2024, and the said order was received in the office of Pr.CIT–1, Hyderabad, on 19.08.2024. The time limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 18.10.2024. The daughter’s engagement and wedding activities, and due to his involvement in the said family functions ... proper channel, and the Pr.CIT granted authorization for filing further appeal on 16.04.2025, resulting in a delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ms. Reema Yadav, learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue, submitted that, the delay in filing the appeal was neither willful nor deliberate

Malireddi Srinath, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hdyerabad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1721/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69A

case. 3. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing

Karthik Kumar Kyatham, Nizamabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Adilabad

ITA 1658/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: CA Phaneendra NagFor Respondent: B K Vishnu Priya, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 24Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69

assessee in limine, without deciding the issues on merits. 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In Ground no.11, the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice issued by the JAO, Ward-(1), Adilabad and consequently

Ramesh Addu, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1278/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69A

under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 Ramesh Addu 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Venkateswarlu, referring to the submissions made by the assessee before

DCIT (Exemptions), Circle 1(1), Hyderabad vs. National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1211/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 124(3)Section 139Section 148

Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 to 4 are allowed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri Ashotosh Pradhan, referring to the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act, submitted

Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

N N Detonators Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1215/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Through Its Director, Shri A. Vijay Kumar, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Stating That, An Appellate Order Dated 18.06.2024 Was Passed In Its Case For A.Y. 2017-18 Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 57,00,000/-. The Assessee Submitted That, The Company Did Not Receive Any Intimation Regarding Passing Of The Appellate Order Either Through Email Or Sms, Which, According To The Assessee, Was Due To Technical Issues. Subsequently, The Assessee Came To Know About The Appellate Order Only After The A.O. Passed A Consequential Order Dated 12.11.2024 Giving Effect To The Appellate Order.

Section 143(3)

Detonators Pvt. Ltd. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 83 days in filing the captioned appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit through its Director, Shri A. Vijay Kumar, explaining the reasons for the delay stating that, an appellate order dated 18.06.2024 was passed ... assessee further submitted that, immediately on coming to know about the appellate order confirming the addition, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal within 10 days of receiving the consequential order, i.e., on 22.11.2024. The assessee submitted that, the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal before

Nagaraj Yasodha, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1150/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Nagaraj Yasodha, Vs. Pr. Cit, C/O Siddaiah Lic Kalanakoppalu, Arasikere, Bangalore. Hassan – 573 103. Pan : Agwpy 2047 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mukesh Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Mukesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 147Section 148

aside the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings entire

Smt Suruchi Satish Sarmalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5942/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 154Section 250Section 270A

delay in filing the present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, which is reproduced herein below: I, Suruchi Satish Sarmalkar 75 years of age, (widow of late Shri Satish Ramchandra Sarmalkar) presently residing at D/45

Escorts Heart and Super Specialty Hospital Ltd., New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 858/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Escorts Heart & Super Vs Asst. Dit Speicality Hospital Ltd., Cpc C/O-Escorts Heart & Super Income Tax Specialty Hospital Centra, Department Okhla Road, Delhi-110025. Bengaluru Pan-Aabce6721G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.M.Mehta, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)- 1, Nashik [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10019921 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Intimation Order Dated 25.10.2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.06.2020, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Return Was Processed By Cpc On 25.10.2020 Wherein Cpc Has Made Addition Of Inr 38,02,910/- On Account Of Amount Paid Towards Increase In Authorized Share Capital & Directly Debited In The Retained Earnings In The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

Section 143(1)Section 250

impugned order dated 17.12.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That Ld. CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance made