← All Phrases

“Commissioner (Appeals)”

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

The decision most relied on for Commissioner (Appeals) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Commissioner (Appeals)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT
199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court
441
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry
44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court
278
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

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.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT
30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT
201
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

Judgments citing Commissioner (Appeals)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5(1), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh vs. Mapaex Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 508/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

DCIT Vs. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 196 (Kolkata -Trib.) 8. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 9. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee ... assigned any other reasons for denying assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. While deciding the issue in appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the finding of the Assessing Officer that the products manufactured by the assessee come within Schedule

Ms Mapaex Remedies Pvt Ltd, Bhopal vs. ACIT 2 (1) Bhopal, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 489/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

DCIT Vs. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 196 (Kolkata -Trib.) 8. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 9. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee ... assigned any other reasons for denying assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. While deciding the issue in appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the finding of the Assessing Officer that the products manufactured by the assessee come within Schedule

Ms Mapaex Remedies Pvt Ltd, Bhopal vs. ACIT 2 (1) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 486/IND/2024[2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

DCIT Vs. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 196 (Kolkata -Trib.) 8. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 9. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee ... assigned any other reasons for denying assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. While deciding the issue in appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the finding of the Assessing Officer that the products manufactured by the assessee come within Schedule

Mapaex Remedies Pvt Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT -2- (1), Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 444/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

DCIT Vs. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 196 (Kolkata -Trib.) 8. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 9. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee ... assigned any other reasons for denying assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. While deciding the issue in appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the finding of the Assessing Officer that the products manufactured by the assessee come within Schedule

Saroj Sugandhi, Bhopal (M.P.) vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal (M.P.)

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 219/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Saroj Sugandhi, Income-Tax Officer, Lig 132, A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Sonagiri, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cqgps1274N Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms.Komal Wadhwani & Ms. Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2024

Section 143(3)

adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision

Vasudev Yashwant Abhyankar, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panvel

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

ITA 1146/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 43CSection 56

passing a speaking order as per provisions of section 250(6) which reads as under: 3 “250……. (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 and the reason

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

detail manner. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the scrap sale from the total turnover while computing the deduction under section 80HHC. Thus, ground no.18

Rajeev Kumar Goel, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 132Section 69A

appeal has been disposed of. Learned Departmental Representative opposed assessee’s contention. However, he did not raise objection against restoration of issues to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de- novo adjudication. 4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we find that before the first appellate authority the assessee had raised

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited, Secunderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 552/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: : Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1963. Section 250(4) of the Act provides as under\: (4) The 81[***] 82[Commissioner (Appeals)] 84may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the 83[Assessing] Officer to make further inquiry and report ... result of the same to the 81[***] 82[Commissioner (Appeals)]. Similarly, Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules provides as under : Production of additional evidence before the 8[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] 9[and Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the 8[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals

Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: : Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1963. Section 250(4) of the Act provides as under\: (4) The 81[***] 82[Commissioner (Appeals)] 84may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the 83[Assessing] Officer to make further inquiry and report ... result of the same to the 81[***] 82[Commissioner (Appeals)]. Similarly, Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules provides as under : Production of additional evidence before the 8[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] 9[and Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the 8[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals

Archana Baid, Silchar, Assam vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Manish Pugalia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

relevant to examine the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, which are reproduced as under: “250(6) – The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision ... taxmann.com 348 (Madras), it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self

Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt Ltd, Ajmer vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143Section 147

lakhs subscribed by ‘D’ Ltd. remained unexplained under section 68 and added it to income of assessee – On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition – On revenue’s appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs. 19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of ‘D’ Ltd. which

The Sirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ACIT, Exemtion Circle, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 609/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Section 250 of the Act deals with the procedure in appeal before the CIT(A). Sub-section (4) of section 250 provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit. Sub-section (5) of this section provides that the Commissioner

Chevalier P J Cherian Arts and Cultural Foundation, Ashok Nagar vs. Ddi Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 702/CHNY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.702/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Chevalier Pj Cherian Arts & The Ddi (Exemptions), Cultural Foundation, Vs. Chennai. 45, First Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600083. [Pan: Aaaac 8002B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P. Ravichandran, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1060188727(1), Dated 29.01.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & The First Appellate Authority Are Contrary To Law. 2. The Denial Of Exemption Under Section 11 To The Extent Of :- 2 -: Rs.16,60,000/- Is Contrary To Law When The Appellant Had Filed Form 10 Along With The Necessary Resolution For Accumulation Of Income. 3. The Denial Of Exemption By The First Appellate Authority On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 1Ob Was Incomplete Is Erroneous & In Any Case The Appellant Ought To Have Been Given An Opportunity To Rebut & Explain The Incompleteness. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Raise Additional Grounds.”

For Appellant: Shri P. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

lacs (as exempt) as per the format given in the return of income. In the light of the same the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that because assessee didn't file details of exempt income at Schedule El, CPC denied deduction cannot be accepted. Mere typographical error

Alagu Process, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Tiruppur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 695/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.695/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alagu Process, The Income Tax Officer, S.F No.414, Vs. Ward-2(1), Palavanjipalayam Ring Road, Tiruppur. Veerapandi Post, Tirupur – 641 605. [Pan: Aavfa 5147P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of : 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/105992446(1), Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.147 R.W.S

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The impugned Order is illegal, unfair and liable to be quashed. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the records pertaining to the appeal proceeding properly including the replies, explanations and evidences filed by the Appellant during the course ... First Appeal Proceeding. 3. Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in making separate addition of Cash Deposits made during the Demonetization Period, when, admittedly, the Return of Income was filed and Income was declared on Presumptive Basis under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, thereby making double addition

Chhotagovinpur and Bagbera Drinking Water Supply Project Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1013/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Chhotagovindpur & Bagbera- The Ito, Drinking Water – Corporate Ward-1(3), Supply Project Ltd., Chennai. New No.136, G.R.Tower 4Th Floor, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aagcc 0433 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh
Section 144Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 801A

favour of the asses-see. 5. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment order, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order

ITO, W-6(4), Jaipur vs. Shriniwas Sharma, Jaipur

19. In view of the above findings, this appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed, and, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed

ITA 3/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

empowers Learned CIT(A) to take on record additional evidence in the manner prescribed therein. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has allowed the reasonable opportunity - (a) to examine ... rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. 8 ITO vs. Shriniwas Sharma 14. It is true that as per sub-rule (3), Commissioner (Appeals) is required to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence produced by the assessee-appellant. But, sub-rule

ITO, Ward- 1)1), Nagpur vs. Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

considered view that the Assessing Officer has erred in making additions towards share application money under section 68 of the Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) without appreciating the facts simply confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, we set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals ... Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.47/Nag./2019 12. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative strongly supporting the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), submitted that mere furnishing identity and bank statement does not prove the genuineness of transaction. It is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer

Deepak Sharma, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 619/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Sri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

merits, instead of dismissing the same. 4. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Even

Real Cargo Mumbai, Arvalli vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Modasa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 268/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Divatia ,Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 189(1)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 254Section 40

Page No. Real Cargo Mumbai (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing sub-section, if the 4 [Assessing Officer] or the 5 [Commissioner (Appeals)] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as is referred to in that sub-section