← 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)

Music Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 7593/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2010-11 C.O. No.88/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7277/Mum/2014,A.Y.2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish MalikFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.AR
Section 143

assessee are directed against the order dated 11-09-2014 2 ITA NO.7593/MUM/2014 & ITA NO.7277/MUM/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 C.O No.88/Mum/2016 passed by learned commissioner (Appeals)-21 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of operating private FM radio stations by name ‘Radio city

DCIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Music Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 7277/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2010-11 C.O. No.88/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7277/Mum/2014,A.Y.2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish MalikFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.AR
Section 143

assessee are directed against the order dated 11-09-2014 2 ITA NO.7593/MUM/2014 & ITA NO.7277/MUM/2014 Assessment Year 2010-11 C.O No.88/Mum/2016 passed by learned commissioner (Appeals)-21 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of operating private FM radio stations by name ‘Radio city

Bigway Marketing Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 9327/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)

show such activities as business objects. Thus, expenses incurred for professional services for purchase of shares of another company was disallowed and learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sustained the same. 2.1 Learned Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.76,95,243 being interest on loan against three properties as learned ... appellant is showing rental income from this building, thus, the interest on loan upon the same is not allowable as business deduction. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sustained the same with relevant findings in paras 6.5 and 6.7 as follows: “6.6 The appellant submitted that the loan was not for purchase

Vilas Sampatrao Garud, Yashshree Park vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Not Known

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 966/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.966/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas Dwarkanath UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 10Section 115VSection 12ASection 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 153ASection 153C

aggrieved94 by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a 95[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] 96[before the 1st day of October, 1998] 97[or, as the case may be, a under 98[***] 99[section 154], 1[***] Commissioner (Appeals ... section 271A 4[, section 271AAB, section 271AAC, section 271AAD]5[, section 271J] or section 272A]; or [(aa) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section 271, section 271A, section 271AAC, section 271AAD or section 271J; or] [(b) an order passed

ACIT 14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shriram Chits Maharastra Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 66/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Raghav MenonFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

years and were thereafter, adjudicated ng Authority in earlier years and were thereafter, adjudicated ng Authority in earlier years and were thereafter, adjudicated by Commissioner (Appeals) and Hon'ble by Commissioner (Appeals) and Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal. The jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Hon'ble Hon'ble ITAT, ITAT, ITAT

Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF by Its Karta Ketan H Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(2)(2) Mumbai Presently Juridiction With ITO 42(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 770/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

Court dismissed the Department's appeal saying that no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing relief to the assessee, and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that there was no adverse comment from the stock ... Appellate Tribunal. After detailed discussion, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded the following findings of fact The above findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are quite exhaustive whereby he has discussed the basis on which the Assessing Officer had made the additionsWhile allowing relief to the assessee

Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar, at. Dena, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer Ward

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

ITA 772/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, At. Dena Para, Vs Ward-3(1)(4), Hami Dena Road, Vadodara Vadodara-390022 Gujarat Pan: Awwpp2183 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil B Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 4-8-2023 Passed By The Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Nfac'), Dismissing The Appeal Against The Order Penalty Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') Relating To The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16. Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar Vs. Ito Asst. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil B Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the order dated 4-8-2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'NFAC'), dismissing the appeal against the order penalty passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred ... under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved against the above penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC. Same facts, as put forward before the AO were reiterated by the assessee before NFAC. The Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar vs. ITO Asst. Year

S Chirag and Co, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 607/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the re-opening action of the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147, which was based on a general confessional statement of alleged bogus purchases ... therefore without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed in appeal. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the re-opening action of the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147, which was based on a 'borrowed satisfaction' and not supported

Suchi Agrawal, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(4), Noida

ITA 601/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Akash Vajpai, Adv. and Ms. Shweta ShandiyalFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

90/90A Assessing Officer disallowed claim, on ground that assessee had not filed Form No. 67 along with return Assessee filed Form No. 67 before Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals) held that since assessee had failed to file Form No. 67 within due date specified for filing return under section ... foreign tax credit - Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form No. 67 filed before Commissioner (Appeals) Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee] * Ritesh Kumar Garg Vs ITO in ITA No. 261/JP/2022 dated 15/09/2022 - ITAT Jaipur Bench held

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6191/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 36(1)(iii)

made. However, while deciding assessee’s appeal, learned first appellate authority granted relief to the assessee. While giving effect to the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer determined interest on income tax refund about Rs.4.28 crores, which according to the assessee, was offered to tax. Thus

Escorts Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5552/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 36(1)(iii)

made. However, while deciding assessee’s appeal, learned first appellate authority granted relief to the assessee. While giving effect to the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer determined interest on income tax refund about Rs.4.28 crores, which according to the assessee, was offered to tax. Thus

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ITO-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

passed- (a) 3 in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject- matter of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of 4 the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. Addl. CIT-Range-3, Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

passed- (a) 3 in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject- matter of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of 4 the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

passed- (a) 3 in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject- matter of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of 4 the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later

Rajesh Jugraj Madhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 326/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Rajesh Jugraj Madhani Deputy Commissioner Of 301, Saloni Apartment, Income Tax – 4(3), 56Th Road, T.P.S. Iii, Vs. Mumbai Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092 (Pan : Aahpm3871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Jay Thacker, Fca Revenue : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jay Thacker, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, sub-section (6) provides that the CIT(A) shall pass an order in writing and shall set the points for determination, the decision

Pushpendra Bansal, Andheri West vs. ACIT-CC-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3236/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mangal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, J. CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore the matter may kindly be sent to the file of the Ld. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We have observed above that though various opportunities have

DCIT, Circle 3(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1410/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

factual matrix relating to the issue in the impugned assessment year is identical to the past assessment years, he followed the decisions of learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed in the past 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410 /Del/2023 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 assessment years

DCIT Circle-3(1)(1). Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1409/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

factual matrix relating to the issue in the impugned assessment year is identical to the past assessment years, he followed the decisions of learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed in the past 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410 /Del/2023 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 assessment years

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1408/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

factual matrix relating to the issue in the impugned assessment year is identical to the past assessment years, he followed the decisions of learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed in the past 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410 /Del/2023 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 assessment years

Parmanand & Sons Food Product Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

ITA 981/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

Section 69B

under: “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It was not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal had taken into ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech ... this Court while deciding the said issue has held as under: “Thus, it is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the apparent sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable. That goods were received from