“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cicle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Bombay Minerals Limited, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

assessee. Aggrieved the assessee. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are in both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhaliya vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 5. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee and ground No. 4 of the appeal

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

passing this consolidated order. 2.2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 2 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal. Upon considering the explanation furnished for this brief delay, we deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there ... documentary evidences. After considering the same, ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee by allowing its appeal, against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We take up grounds raised by the Revenue, seriatim. 4. Ground nos.1 and 2 are in respect of transfer pricing adjustment on account

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

ACIT, Circle-1, Solapur vs. Yuvraj Patil and Company, Talsangi

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

ITA 2803/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24 Acit, Circle – 1, Yuvraj Patil & Company Solapur Vs. Talsangi, Mangalwedha, Solapur – 413305 Pan: Aaafy4589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-03-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl CIT DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Q

deleted the addition by observing as under: 3 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) NAFC

ACIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Kvr Consultancy Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 212/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 251

Holdings Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.5,63,00,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

Dayachary Ponnekanti, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1985/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1985/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Dayachary Ponnekanti, Hyderabad. Pan: Ahspp5496L Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar 02/03/2026 11/03/2026 Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dayachary Ponnekanti, ("The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)") Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Murad Khetani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

from Aravind Agarwal for Rs. 70,00,000/-. 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 Ajay Tulsiyan, C.A. and Shri Kapil Shah, C.A., referring to the assessment order passed

Seenaiah Boddupalli, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1168/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: him which are proper documents and crucial evidence for disposing the appeal in favour of the appellant.

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 250

under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining

Pabbareddy Kodandaramireddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nellore

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

ITA 527/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

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

Section 69Section 69A

towards unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, referring to the assessment order and appellate order, submitted that, although

Naseer Ahmath Riswana Fathima, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 1(4), Cheenai, Chennai

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

ITA 3415/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. K.Vishwa padmanabhan, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2273/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Susan Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

count. 14. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the FAA. The FAA confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 15. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had debited interest expenditure of Rs.2,03,20,717/- in the Profit & Loss account in respect

Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2272/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Susan Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2203/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2203/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj, V. Dcit, 19 Al, Mudali Street, Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Nehru Nagar, Chennai. Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. [Pan:Aidpg 5262 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 197Section 69

confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. A.Y. 2017-18 :- 3 -: 5. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO and confirmed

M/S. Hl Mando Anand India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-1(4), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2088/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2088/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xi)Section 144B(1)(xix)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 250Section 35

passing of the final assessment order.” 3. The CIT(A) also dismissed the contentions of the assessee on merits. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee at the outset submitted that contention with

Lakshmanappa Parameshwarappa Prakash, Chikkamagaluru vs. ACIT, Hassan

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

ITA 2271/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Roshan Manssor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the learned AR submitted that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 741 days. The learned AR explained that ... delay in filing the present appeal. It was submitted that the assessee has filed . ITA No.2271 /Bang/2025 Page 4 of 7 the appeal before the Tribunal with a substantial delay of 741 days and the explanation furnished for such an inordinate delay is not satisfactory. It was submitted that merely

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. ITO-13 (3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4407/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Ambuselvan (SR AR)

Section 144Section 250

upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 97 days. The Ld. DR strongly relied upon and supported the orders of the revenue authorities. 4. Upon verification of the record

Logics Poweramr Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 6641/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

dated 04-09-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the FORM no.10- CCB was not uploaded with in time due to inadvertent mistake

Supertech Ev Limited, Jhajjar vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Rohtak

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6603/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2024-25 Supertech Ev Limited Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Plot No.150 Sector 16 Exemptions Ward Rohtak Phase 1 Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Haryana-124507 Pan No.Abjcs1671E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

dated 26-09-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Form no.10-IC was not uploaded with in time due to mistake committed

Sumitra Devi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

ITA 2499/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

Ld.CIT(A), who vide his order dated 25.3.2025 has partly allowed for statistical purpose the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR has submitted that in the assessment order dated 27.3.2022 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147, the AO simply mentioned that section 148 notice