← All Phrases

“Section 31(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 31Section 31(3)61 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 31(3) is CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (66 ITR 443), cited in 239 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 31(3)

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria
66 ITR 443 · 1967 · Supreme Court
239
citing judgments

The appellate authority cannot enhance an assessment by considering a source of income that was not examined by the Assessing Officer. The scope of appellate power is limited to the subject matter considered by the Assessing Officer.

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
126 Taxmann.com 132 · 2021 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India
282 ITR 273 · 2006 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

The rule of consistency requires that in the absence of any change in material facts or law, a different view or decision on an issue cannot be adopted for subsequent assessment years, thus ensuring uniformity in tax assessments.

CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd.
293 ITR 201 · 2007 · Supreme Court
109
citing judgments

Expenditure for replacement of machinery parts qualifies as 'current repairs' under Section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act if it does not result in a new asset or substantially enhance the existing asset's life. For Section 31(i), the critical factor is whether the expense constitutes current repairs, making the general revenue vs. capital distinction less relevant for that specific section.

Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain
31 ITR 872 · 1957 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' under the Income Tax Act includes instances where there is a loss of tax.

RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH. 31
3 SCC 569 · 1994 · Reported
101
citing judgments

Stringent bail provisions under special legislations like the TADA Act are justified on the presumption that the trial will proceed without undue delay; gross delays for undertrials can invoke the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd.
409 ITR 545 · 2018 · High Court
84
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot take a contrary or different stand on an issue in a subsequent assessment year if the factual position remains identical to previous years where a deduction was allowed.

Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT
186 ITR 278 · 1990 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

Upon amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. Therefore, any assessment or proceeding initiated against a non-existent amalgamating company is invalid as it is no longer considered a 'person' under the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing Section 31(3)

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

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce ... 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 disclosed either

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

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce ... 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 disclosed either

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

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce ... 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 disclosed either

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

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce ... 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 disclosed either

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

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry 44 ITR 891 (SC), wherein it was held that: “Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 31(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether it would not be open to AAC to introduce ... 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 disclosed either

Bhasin Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle -(4)2, New Delhi

ITA 5544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Bhasin Motors Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

ITA 1699/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Kakinada Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 270A

Income Tax, U.P. v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate MANU/SC/0123/ 1964: [1964]531TR225(SC) a three Judge Bench of this Court discussed the scope of Section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which is almost identical to Section 251(1)(a). The Court held as under ... appeal lies, Section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in such an appeal. Under Section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment

Dbg Leasing and Housing Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 8308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year : 2008-09 Dbg Leasing & Housing Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 7(1), New Delhi C-88, Gali No. 8, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032 (Pan: Aaacd0473F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR
Section 147Section 29ASection 30(2)Section 31(1)

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the corporate debtor and the Resolution Plan to IBBI to be recorded in its database in terms of Section 31(3) (b) of the Code. The Resolution Professional is further directed to hand over all the records, premises, and properties of the corporate debtor

Jai Mata Di Om, Thane vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax, Thane-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3342/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225(SC), the Court inter alia held that under section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b) thereof

M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1549/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1900/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Doctor Bawitlung Zothankima, Aizawl vs. DCIT, Silchar

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

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 ITO and which is not disclosed either ... therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot travel beyond the subject-matter of the assessment. In other words, the power of enhancement under section 31(3) of the Act is restricted to the subject-matter of assessment or the source of income which have been considered expressly or by clear implication

Cupid Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Shetty & Shri Vinayaka RaoFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 69C

Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225(SC), the Court inter alia held that under section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b) thereof

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Supreme Court held as under:- "5. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, a three Judge bench of this Court discussed the scope of Section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, :1922 which is almost identical to Section 251(l)(a). The court held - asunder ... appeal lies, Section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in such an appeal. Under Section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3102/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Supreme Court held as under:- "5. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, a three Judge bench of this Court discussed the scope of Section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, :1922 which is almost identical to Section 251(l)(a). The court held - asunder ... appeal lies, Section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in such an appeal. Under Section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment

Phulchand Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2415/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Supreme Court held as under:- "5. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, a three Judge bench of this Court discussed the scope of Section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, :1922 which is almost identical to Section 251(l)(a). The court held - asunder ... appeal lies, Section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in such an appeal. Under Section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment

Kaushal Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Trashawala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225(SC), the Court inter alia held that under section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b) thereof

Gangunaidu Sabbavarapu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhpatnam

ITA 177/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2023-24
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(37)Section 250Section 254Section 96

Supreme Court held as under :- "5. In CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, a three Judge bench of this Court discussed the scope of Section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which is almost identical to Section 251(1)(a). The court held as under ... appeal lies, Section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in such an appeal. Under Section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment

Ochhab Lal Jain, Udaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 429/JODH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

this view is challenged in this appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. The earliest case, which considered the meaning of section 31(3), was JagarnathTherani vs. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1925 Pat. 408 decided by the Patna High Court. In that case, the assessee had three businesses ... other intention in express words. The Income-tax Act was amended several times in the last 37 years, but no amendment of section 31(3) was undertaken to nullify the rulings, to which we have referred. In view of this, we do not think that we should interpret section 31