← All Phrases

“Commissioner (Appeals)”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(16A) / Section 1174,761 judgments

THE SIMALIYA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

ITA 2442/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 69C

additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte in violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective of the appellant's absence or non-compliance ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that non-appearance of the appellant does not empower the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss or decide appeal on merits without real hearing. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming

AMBEY ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

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

ITA 5505/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarambey Enterprises Vs. Assessing Officer 30/54 A 1St Floor Gali Ward 58(1) No.8, Vishwas Nagar Delhi Shahdara, Delhi 110032 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdfa 0570D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

loan is doubtful. That being the case, the addition under section 69A of the Act cannot be made. Therefore, the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has to be sustained." Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of V.K. Packaging Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and others (266 ITR 283), which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1254/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

Assessee, engaged in business of solid waste management, claimed exemption under section 80-IA which was initially disallowed by Assessing Officer - But on appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed assessee's claim of deduction in its entirety - Later on, assessment was sought to be reopened firstly, on ground that post monitoring expenses ... allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter be not open for Assessing Officer to reopen this very claim for possible disallowance of part thereof - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1249/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

Assessee, engaged in business of solid waste management, claimed exemption under section 80-IA which was initially disallowed by Assessing Officer - But on appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed assessee's claim of deduction in its entirety - Later on, assessment was sought to be reopened firstly, on ground that post monitoring expenses ... allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter be not open for Assessing Officer to reopen this very claim for possible disallowance of part thereof - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1166/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

Assessee, engaged in business of solid waste management, claimed exemption under section 80-IA which was initially disallowed by Assessing Officer - But on appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed assessee's claim of deduction in its entirety - Later on, assessment was sought to be reopened firstly, on ground that post monitoring expenses ... allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter be not open for Assessing Officer to reopen this very claim for possible disallowance of part thereof - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1165/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 14A

Assessee, engaged in business of solid waste management, claimed exemption under section 80-IA which was initially disallowed by Assessing Officer - But on appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed assessee's claim of deduction in its entirety - Later on, assessment was sought to be reopened firstly, on ground that post monitoring expenses ... allowable - Whether on ground of merger, reopening notice must be quashed as initial assessment order of Assessing Officer merged with order of Commissioner (Appeals), and it thereafter be not open for Assessing Officer to reopen this very claim for possible disallowance of part thereof - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour

MOHIT JAIN,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 844/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
Section 144Section 250(6)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nINDORE BENCH, INDORE\nBEFORE SHRI B.M

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250

above-named deponent am well conversant with the facts deposed to below: -\n1. That the appeal filed by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed\nof by order dated 12.01.2023 Commissioner (Appeals) Bhopal.\n2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire

ANEEMONI NAGA RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2074/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

case falling under clause (b) and on an application\nmade by the appellant in this behalf, the [Joint Commissioner\n(Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and\nsufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the\noperation of the provisions of that clause.\"\n12. Ostensibly ... assessee has not filed the return of\nincome comes with a concession as per which on an application made\nby the assessee/appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals), for any good\nand sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the\noperation of the provisions of that clause. Accordingly

SURESH NAMMI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1620/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous in law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erred

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

made addition of Rs. 1.45 crore under section 68 on ground that loan taken from one 'IA' was not explained satisfactorily - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with respect to genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of 'IA' and, therefore, deleted addition - It was found that total loan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

made addition of Rs. 1.45 crore under section 68 on ground that loan taken from one 'IA' was not explained satisfactorily - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with respect to genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of 'IA' and, therefore, deleted addition - It was found that total loan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

made addition of Rs. 1.45 crore under section 68 on ground that loan taken from one 'IA' was not explained satisfactorily - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with respect to genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of 'IA' and, therefore, deleted addition - It was found that total loan

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPATMENT BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7273/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

uploading same in electronic mode - Central Processing Centre denied exemption under section 11 for want of submission of Form 108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular ... dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay in filing form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing Form 10B. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee's appeal holding that assessee

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPATMENT BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7272/DEL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

uploading same in electronic mode - Central Processing Centre denied exemption under section 11 for want of submission of Form 108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular ... dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay in filing form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing Form 10B. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee's appeal holding that assessee

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7271/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

uploading same in electronic mode - Central Processing Centre denied exemption under section 11 for want of submission of Form 108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular ... dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay in filing form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under section 119(2)(b) to condone delay in filing Form 10B. Thus, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee's appeal holding that assessee

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

adjustments. While deciding the issue, learned DRP took note of the fact that in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2015-16, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, learned DRP directed the Assessing Officer to verify the fact whether any appeal against ... decision of Commissioner (Appeals) has been preferred before the higher forum and in case it is found not to be so, delete the adjustment. While completing the final assessment, the Assessing Officer incorporated the adjustment again. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could

AKSHIT MAHESH KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6052/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. —\n(1) If the 2 [Assessing Officer] or the ( ***) [Joint Commissioner (Appeals)] or the\n[Commissioner (Appeals)] or the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] in the\ncourse of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person ... such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by\nthe [Assessing Officer] or the [***] [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the]\n[Commissioner (Appeals)] or the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] to be false,\nor\n(B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able

SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ADAPA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1263/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-13(1), Pan: Aaypa8644C Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 16/06/2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(2)

unjust, illegal and contrary to the facts of the case. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that, no order u/s 127 was passed for transfer of jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-2(3), Visakhapatnam ... jurisdiction and the assessment order is liable to be quashed. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC ought to have appreciated the fact that, if the appellant original jurisdiction lies with ITO, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad, the notice

SHRI VISHAL VASANT BANDEWAR ,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR- 2, PUNE

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

ITA 22/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

prosecution. We find the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which read as under: “250(1). … (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon

Showing 1–20 of 4,761 · Page 1 of 239

...