What is CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria authority for?

The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income not considered by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings. The appellate powers are limited to the subject matter of the assessment under appeal.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria?

239 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (66 ITR 443), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 263, Section 153A, Section 251.

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (66 ITR 443)

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE GREATHILLS, MUMBAI

ITA 3904/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.3904/Mum/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

…his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by ITO - Held, yes” 9. The ld. AR further placed his reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443(SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Commissioner (Appeals)- Power of Assessment year 1952-53 - Whether power of enhancement of AAC under section 31(3) of 1922 Act is restricted to subject matter of assessment or source o…

SKYLINE GREATHILLS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3466/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.3904/Mum/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

…his power of enhancement is restricted only to income which was subject-matter of consideration for purposes of assessment by ITO - Held, yes” 9. The ld. AR further placed his reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443(SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Commissioner (Appeals)- Power of Assessment year 1952-53 - Whether power of enhancement of AAC under section 31(3) of 1922 Act is restricted to subject matter of assessment or source o…

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…ibunal, in the case of M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, vide ITA No. 4903/Del/2019. Further, the Id.CIT(A) in his order dt. 20.03.2025 has relied upon the Supreme Court judgement held in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under: PAGE-16 :-16-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 “The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under section 31(3) of the Act, to assess a source of income which has not…

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…ibunal, in the case of M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, vide ITA No. 4903/Del/2019. Further, the ld.CIT(A) in his order dt. 20.03.2025 has relied upon the Supreme Court judgement held in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under: :-16-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 “The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under section 31(3) of the Act, to assess a source of income which has not been…

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…ibunal, in the case of M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, vide ITA No. 4903/Del/2019. Further, the ld.CIT(A) in his order dt. 20.03.2025 has relied upon the Supreme Court judgement held in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under: :-16-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 “The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under section 31(3) of the Act, to assess a source of income which has not been…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…ibunal, in the case of M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, vide ITA No. 4903/Del/2019. Further, the Id.CIT(A) in his order dt. 20.03.2025 has relied upon the Supreme Court judgement held in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under section 31(3) of the Act, to assess a source of income which has not been processed by the Incometax Officer and which is not disc…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

…ibunal, in the case of M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, vide ITA No. 4903/Del/2019. Further, the Id.CIT(A) in his order dt. 20.03.2025 has relied upon the Supreme Court judgement held in the case of Rai Bahadur Hardutory Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under: :-16-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 “The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under section 31(3) of the Act, to assess a source of income which has not been pro…

ASHOK KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-30(2), DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 498/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Ashok Kumar, Vs. Ito, 74, Uday Park, Ward 30(2), New Delhi – 110 048. New Delhi. Pan: Abcpk7690K

For Appellant: Ms Mansi Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Ashok Kumar, Vs. ITO, 74, Uday Park, Ward 30(2), New Delhi – 110 048. New Delhi. PAN: ABCPK7690K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Mansi Jain, Advocate & Shri Siddharth Bajaj, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.11.2024 of the Commissio…

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI

ITA 7/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

…5 (Delhi High Court)\nb) Hari Mohan Sharma VS Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,\nCircle-63(1), New Delhi [2019] 110 taxmann.com 119 (Delhi - Trib.)\nc) CIT VS Union Tyres (1999) 107 Taxmann 447 (Delhi High Court)\nd) Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC)\ne) Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC)\n17.6 The Ld DR has drawn attention of the Bench to the Judgement of Supreme\nCourt in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 to argue that the\npowers of CIT(A) are wide and CIT(A) can make enhancement on new source of\nincome. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case laws…