Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT

292 ITR 99High Court2007#8064 most cited

What is Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT authority for?

Admission of an appeal before the CIT(A) is subject to the mandatory condition of payment of tax due on the income returned by the assessee.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT · section 249(4) · appeal before CIT(A) · payment of admitted tax · condition precedent · appeal maintainability · tax due on returned income · mandatory compliance

Also reported as

162 Taxmann 16

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 234CSection 249(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 249(4)(a)section 35(1)(i)section 35(1)(iv)section 35(1)opening wdvsection 249(4)written down valuesection 249section 22section 35advance taxappeal before cit(a)

Judgments citing Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT

Krishnappa Satish Kumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed-in-part

ITA/248/2024HC Karnataka12 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 260

…HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9219-DB ITA No. 248 of 2024 paid, the CIT(A) would have no jurisdiction to admit the appeal and consider the same on merits. 9. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated by this Court in D. Komalakshi v. DCIT [(2007) 292 ITR 99 (Kar)] and Smt. M.R. Prabhavathy v. ACIT [(2003) 262 ITR 501 (Kar)]. Similar observations have also been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Pawan Kumar Laddha [(2010) 324 ITR 324 (SC)]. The orders passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are in conformity with the provisions of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act and the judicial pronouncemen…

Sri S V Srinivasa Babu vs. The Deputy Commissioner

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/27/2015HC Karnataka24 Sept 2025

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 246ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 260A

…templated under Section 249(4)(a) or (4)(b) of the Act for entertaining the appeal filed under Section 246A of the Act? iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in following the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of D.Komalakshi vs. DCIT (2007) 292 ITR 99 in preference to the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of T.Govindappa Setty vs. ITO (1998) 231 ITR 892?" 4. The facts in brief are that the Assessee was issued a notice under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] on 21.06.1999, pursuant to the search - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38…

Sri. Krishnappa Satish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 731/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

…on the income returned by him. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that the taxes due had been paid by him before filing this appeal. The issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of D Komalakshi V DCI 292 ITR 99 (Kar) and Smt. M R Prabhavathy V ACIT 26 IT 501. This was also observed so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Pawan Kumar Laddha 324 IT 324 that the compliance of the provisions o section 249(4)(a) is mandatory. 3.2 Considering the above, the appeal is not admitted and as such the same is not maintainable. The grounds of appeal are…

Smt. Sulochana Ramesh, Bengaluru vs. The ACIT, Central Circle- 2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 139(9)Section 144Section 153CSection 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Smt. Sulochana Ramesh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner # 68/A, Flat No.401, of Income Tax, Bliss Blossom Apartment, Central Circle 2(2), Jogupalya Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. PAN: AAXPR 8496E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 16.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member…

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…iling was not complied with by the assessee and, therefore, the ld CIT(A) ought to have refused to admit the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act,…

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…iling was not complied with by the assessee and, therefore, the ld CIT(A) ought to have refused to admit the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act,…

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…iling was not complied with by the assessee and, therefore, the ld CIT(A) ought to have refused to admit the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act,…

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 627/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…iling was not complied with by the assessee and, therefore, the ld CIT(A) ought to have refused to admit the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act,…

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…iling was not complied with by the assessee and, therefore, the ld CIT(A) ought to have refused to admit the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act,…

ACIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S. Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

…iling was not complied with by the assessee and, therefore, the ld CIT(A) ought to have refused to admit the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 99/162 Taxman 16 , wherein, it has been held that section 249(4) of the Act makes it clear that admission of an appeal before the ld CIT(A) is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned. In the case of CIT v. Manoj Kumar Beriwal [2009] 316 ITR 218 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that for the purpose of section 249(4) of the Act,…

M/S. Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions and are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 264/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Moved An Application For Seeking Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Contents Thereof Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 264 & 263/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2013-14 cuke M/s Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Vs. Mandawa Road, Sitar, Circle, Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ9791P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (A…

M/S. Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle-Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions and are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 263/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Moved An Application For Seeking Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Contents Thereof Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 264 & 263/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2013-14 cuke M/s Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Vs. Mandawa Road, Sitar, Circle, Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ9791P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (A…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S Redex Protech P Ltd, Ahmedabad

ITA 462/AHD/2002[95-96]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2019

Bench: The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Xi, Ahmedabad Dated 31.12.2001 Passed For The Asstt.Year 1995- 96. On Receipt Of Notice In The Revenue’S Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Bearing No.28/Ahd/2002. Ita No.462/Ahd/2002 & Others With Co (Special Bench)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar with Shri P.M. Mehta and Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(4)Section 255(4)Section 264Section 80I

…g to the ld.DR, there are specific differences on the facts between the case in hand vis-à-vis before the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter, he made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Komlakshi D. Rajkumar Vs. DCIT (2006) 292 ITR 99 (Kar) and submitted that in this case Hon’ble High Curt has again considered the mandatory condition requires to be fulfilled under section 249(4) of the Act and held that unless taxes are being paid on the self-assessed income admitted by way of the returned income, appeal cannot be entertained by the ld.CIT(A). This decision is subsequent to the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises PVt. Ltd

ITTA/27/2015HC Telangana15 Jun 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH