← 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
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

Shardaben Dhanjibhai Savani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 385 To 387/Srt/2025 (Ay 2021-22) (Physical Hearing) Shardaben Dhanjibihai Savani Assessment Unit Income-Tax 74-75, 3Rd Floor Om Industries-8, Department Jurisdictional Ao/ Umbhel Road, Parabgam, Kamrej, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Surat-394 101 Ward-2(3)(4) Surat, Aaykar Vs [Pan : Kiyps 3244 C] Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271A(1)(d)

vide order dated 16.12.2024. ITA Nos.385-387/SRT/2025 (A.Y.21-22) Sharadaben D Savani 5. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that assessee could not get due opportunity to explain her case before lower authorities. The Ld. AR submitted before

Tejaskumar Subhashbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

ITA 340/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, J

Section 144Section 254(1)

Bharathi Cement Corporation (P.) Ltd. Writ Petition No.6260 of 2012. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 12. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record carefully. Before us Ld.AR

Tejaskumar Subhashbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 339/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 144Section 254(1)

Bharathi Cement Corporation (P.) Ltd. Writ Petition No.6260 of 2012. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 12. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record carefully. Before us Ld.AR

Andhara Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex-parte for both the assessment years by observing as under:

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

dismissal for want of prosecution as discussed supra.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Andhara Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 557/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex-parte for both the assessment years by observing as under:

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

dismissal for want of prosecution as discussed supra.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also

Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Temple, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Guntur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

ITA 489/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

Section 12ASection 147

result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.489/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 13. There is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit and explained the reasons for the delay and submitted that the delay

Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy, Ponnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Guntur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

ITA 339/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

Section 12ASection 147

result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.489/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 13. There is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit and explained the reasons for the delay and submitted that the delay

Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Temple, Ponnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Guntur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

ITA 338/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

Section 12ASection 147

result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.489/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 13. There is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit and explained the reasons for the delay and submitted that the delay

Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Temple, Ponnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Guntur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

ITA 337/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

Section 12ASection 147

result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.489/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 13. There is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit and explained the reasons for the delay and submitted that the delay

Jagir Kaur, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 951/CHANDI/2025[2013-14 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 05.06.2025. 5. Against the order of the Ld CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ownership of agricultural land by the assessee has remained undisputed

Gourav Bhagwandas Agarwal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 894/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 32 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides ... appellant is hereby dismissed. 5.0. In the end result, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 7. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 8. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-appearance/non-compliance before

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara, Cir-Satara

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

ITA 2156/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2155 & 2156/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ajinkya Complex, 512, Ch. Shivaji Road, Camp, Sadar Bazar, Satara-415001 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Vs. Satara Pan: Aaaat1502B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 28-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 15.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2020-21. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

submit relevant documents in support of its aforementioned claim, hence this ground of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that non-compliance before the Ld. AO was not deliberate

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara, Cir-Satara

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

ITA 2155/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2155 & 2156/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ajinkya Complex, 512, Ch. Shivaji Road, Camp, Sadar Bazar, Satara-415001 Pan: Aaaat1502B अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Vs. Satara प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 28-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 15.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2020-21. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

submit relevant documents in support of its aforementioned claim, hence this ground of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that non-compliance before the Ld. AO was not deliberate

Shree Vishal Jewellers, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 9 Pune, Akurdi Pune

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

ITA 1975/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1975/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Vishal Jewellers, Dcit, Circle-9, Pune Kohinoor Arcade, Nigdi, Pune-411044 Vs. Pan : Achfs8052R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sushant Padhye Department By : Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of 28-11-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Error In Additions Of Rs.6,25,94,300/- In Respect Of Provision Of Section 68 Of The Act. The Ao Erred In Appreciating The Complexity Of Assessee'S Business & Made Addition Based On Conjecture Rather Than Evidence. Addition Was Made Merely By Treating Excess Balance Of Cash As Unexplained Credits Thereby Ignoring The Circumstances In Which Such Cash Was Recorded. 2. Error In Additions Of Rs.82,96,610/- In Respect Of Provision Of Section 68 Of The Act. The Ao Made An Addition In Haste Without Completely Understanding The Facts Of The Case. This Addition Belies A Sense Of Proportion. A. Addition Of Rs.46,96,610/- Of Unsecured Loan Forwarded By Mrs. Sangeeta Sonigara: The Officer Erred In Appreciating The Fact That The Loan Could Have Been Given By The Said Person From Gifts Received Or Through Other Exempt Income Earned In The Past. Merely Because The Person Doesnt Not Have Sufficient Income In The Immediately Previous Years Does Not Invalidate The Genuineness Of The Unsecured Loan. B. Addition Of Rs.37,00,000/- Of Unsecured Loan Forwarded By Mr. Ganesh Nadha: The Said Person Is A Third Party. Unsecured

For Appellant: Shri Sushant PadhyeFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

facts of the case, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 4 ITA No.1975/PUN/2025, AY 2017-18 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-appearance/non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Bapu Foundation for Learning on Mind and Discourse, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 185/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Basic principles of natural Justice being opportunity of being heard Audi alteram partem was not exercised

Mrinalini Jayant Puranik, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274

Officer by observing as under: 4 5 6 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that 90% of tax has been deducted from the various income declared

Dnyaneshwar Ekanath Balwadkar, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(2) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1770/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Dnyaneshwar Ekanath Balwadkar Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Vs. Balewadi Haveli, Pune – 411045 Pan: Athpb4978N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 147Section 148

delay and dismissed the appeal in-limine. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and is not well acquainted with technology. With much difficulties

Bapu Foundation for Learning on Mind and Discourse, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

earlier, he refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Basic principles of natural Justice being opportunity of being heard Audi alteram partem was not exercised

Mindspace Ventures Limited, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1397/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Mindspace Ventures Limited Ito, Ward-1(1), Pentagaon 2 Level 6, Magarpatta Vs. Aurangabad City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aagcm3686H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Jaju Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh JajuFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 69A

Assessing Officer by observing as under: 3 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company was holding two corporate credit cards with SBI Cards and Payments Services

Apaasso Mali, Pune vs. ITO 11(1), Swargate

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

ITA 1110/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 249Section 249(2)

delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred