“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

Prasanth Puttamareddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1555/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 271(1)(c)Section 69

come under ‘reasonable cause’ as provided under the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. submitted that, the assessee, being an NRI, could not receive the notices ... under ‘reasonable cause’ as provided under the Act. 13. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the delay of 120 days occurred only because the assessee

Prasanth Puttamareddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1554/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 271(1)(c)Section 69

Maheshwar Reddy Kura, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 1542/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

assessment. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, submitted that, the assessment was completed ex parte because the assessee

Brightcom Group Limited (Formerly Known As Lycos Internet Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1862/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 145Section 92BSection 92C

assessment order on 30.10.2017 by incorporating the directions of Hon'ble DRP. 7. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order, assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. ITA 1862/Hyd/2017 Brightcom Group Limited 8. Before us, at the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Murali Mohan

Kannappan Ragupathi, Pollachi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pollachi

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

ITA 2508/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2508/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K. Muthukumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

dated 17.02.2025 upheld all the additions made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessment has filed a paper- book enclosing therein bank statements, trading statement of shares, turnover calculated, the list of unsecured creditors, copy

Indihaf Jamal Mohamed, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 10(6), Chennai

ITA 2398/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Srikrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271DSection 54

confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book consisting of 276 pages enclosing therein the sale deed of old property, construction agreement, deed of new property

Balakumar Radhakrishna, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2309/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2309/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

legal grounds raised and dismissed the appeal on merits. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed two sets of paper-book enclosing therein the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year, return

Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is allowed

ITA 6454/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit – 4(2)(1) 6/7, Silk House, Silk Bazar, Jss Road, Room No. 422, Aayakar Bhavan, Girgaon, Mumbai-400 002 Vs. M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 1890 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Dated 26.08.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Confirming The Penalty Imposed Of Rs.16,88,670/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. We Have Considered The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.10.2016, Declaring Nil Income Under The Normal Provisions & Book Profit Of Rs.9,12,562/- U/S. 115Jb Of The Act. The Return So Filed By The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. In Course Of Assessment Proceeding, The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) Noticed That An Amount Of Rs.56,28,900/-

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

claim was disallowed by the A.O. and such disallowance was also sustained by ld. first appellate authority. Though the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, however, considering the fact that there was no tax implication arising out of such disallowance as the income was ultimately determined

Amit Virendra Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5697/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69C

dismissed the appeal of the assessee to confirm the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR during the course of hearing made detailed submissions with regard to the legal contentions raised through addition

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5602/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

alia, upholding the above disallowance of INR.1,28,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Now the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal challenging the denial of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80G of the Act in respect of CSR expenses of INR.1

Anukool Gas Service, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3402/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 269SSection 271ASection 68

cash credit in the name of the partner to the tune of Rs. 36,50,000/-. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR submitted that assessee is a LPG Gas Cylinder Agent and every gas cylinder sold by the assessee are tracked by BPCL

ACIT, CC-13, Jhandewalan vs. Sbl Pvt Ltd, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Vs Acit Sbl Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-13 Plot No.3, Sector-12, Iie, New Delhi. Sideul, Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249403. Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Shaurya Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/10525/17-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Engaged In Manufacturing Of Homoeopathy Medicines In India & Has Two Manufacturing Units Situated At Haridwar Which Are Eligible For Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act & Also Has Units At Jaipur & Sahibabad, Which Are Non-Eligible Units. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2014, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 18,85,40,940/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 31.08.2015, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaire. In Response, Requisite Details & Replies Were From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions & Replies Filed By The Assessee In Support Of Its Claim, Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee Company At Inr 52,74,33,562/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Estimation Of Income At Sahibabad Plant & Further By Making Disallowance Out Of Various Expenses & By Not Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ic Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

vide order dated 15.04.2025, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Prime Hitech Engineering Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3491/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Prime Hitech Engineering Ltd., Central Circle-1, 11/5B, Prime Group Building, Delhi Pusa Road, New Delhi Pan: Aafcp4080K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Satish Agarwal, Ca Department By Sh. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr)

Section 133(6)Section 147

ground nos. 3 & 4 are partly allowed.” 4 | P a g e This is what leaves the department aggrieved who has come in appeal before the tribunal. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s and the assessee’s respective vehement submissions. We reiterate that this

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Nivedan Fin-Invest Lease Ltd., Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1713/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Aggrieved against the deletion of addition of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- made by the AO, the Revenue has preferred the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR submitted that the Learned First Appellate Authority was not justified in deleting the impugned addition

Vinod Bhati, Ballabgarh vs. ITO Ward - 2(5), Faridabad

In the result, both the grounds of appeal are partly allowed

ITA 14/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

regard to the disallowances in dispute, no evidence was furnished and upheld the action of AO. Further, aggrieved the assessee, filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Vinod Bhati (AY 2016-17) 5. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) of the assessee

Balasore Alloys Limited, Balasore vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 335/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 27.03.2025 for the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. The assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 30.05.2025. This appeal has been posted for hearing on 31.07.2025, 25.08.2025, 28.08.2025, 26.09.2025, 07.10.2025, 19.11.2025 and today

Hotel Pranaminn Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

made in the hands of the assessee has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and the revenue has not filed any further appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission that the 2 quantum addition itself having been deleted, the penalty u/s.271

Menaka Jayasaval, Samastipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 169/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2017-18 dated 12.02.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not consider the evidence on record and confirming addition ... unexplained cash deposits, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The ld. Departmental

Shankar, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 159/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

same, he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to which there is a delay of 306 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he has pleaded to condone the delay. 1.2. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned in the petition ... stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 306 days 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 grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that

Nazerabibi Nadeem Shama, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2 (3) (6), Surat

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

ITA 760/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.760/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazerabibi Nadeem Shama, Vs. Ito, 401, 4Th Floor, Dhoom Palace, Nr. I. P. Ward – 2(3)(6), Mission School, Muglisara, Surat – Surat 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Dbpps2760J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/12/2025

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

addition made by AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book and submitted that details and documents were filed before