← 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)

Devesh Mittal, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-20, Delhi

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

ITA 716/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

Globus Agro Foods P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 715/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

Globus Agro Foods P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 714/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2015-16

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

Kwality Techmech P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 713/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

Kwality Techmech P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 712/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

Kwality Techmech P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 711/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Globus Agro Foods Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 2420/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

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Globus Agro Foods Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 2419/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

Globus Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 1855/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

Globus Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 1854/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Parmanand and Sons Foods Products P.Ltd, Delhi

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

ITA 1330/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

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Parmanand and Sons Foods Products P.Ltd, Delhi

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

ITA 1329/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Htc India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished, unless the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that the price charged or paid in such transaction was computed in accordance with the provisions contained

DCIT Circle -1 (Exemption) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Naroda Enviro Projct Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/AHD/2024[2016 17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 2(15)Section 25

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in affirming the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the activities of the assessee fall within the ambit of “Preservation of Environment” as envisaged under Section 2(15) of the Income

Jalpa Savankumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 348/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)

Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and) on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation ... case where no Return had been filed by the assessee and application made by the assessee in this behalf, the Commissioner(Appeals) may for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing exempt the assessee from the operation of the provisions of clause (b) of section

Takshashila Realties Private Limited (Earstwhile Youngstar Infracon Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2) Now Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 601/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), contending that increased land value should be added to book profit for tax calculation purposes - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition, stating that revaluation reserve could not be reversed while computing book profit under section 115JB, and none of adjustments provided in Explanation ... pooling of interests method and therefore, adjustments made by Assessing Officer in book profit was not in accordance with law and rightly deleted by Commissioner (Appeals) - Held, yes [Para 10] … 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. Prima facie, we are in agreement

DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Takshashila Realities Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Youngstar Infracon Private Limited), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 597/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), contending that increased land value should be added to book profit for tax calculation purposes - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition, stating that revaluation reserve could not be reversed while computing book profit under section 115JB, and none of adjustments provided in Explanation ... pooling of interests method and therefore, adjustments made by Assessing Officer in book profit was not in accordance with law and rightly deleted by Commissioner (Appeals) - Held, yes [Para 10] … 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. Prima facie, we are in agreement

Mahesh D.Tekchandani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Mahesh Tekchandani, Income-Tax Officer, 67, Shivalik Bungalows, Ward-3(3)(3), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aespt 5350 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.1 The Order Passed By U/S.250 Passed On 20.10.2023 By Cit(A)-Nfac Delhi Upholding The Addition Of Rs.28,72,000/- Made By A.O. Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The First Payment By Cheque Was Made On 03.02.2014 & The Final Purchase Deed Was Executed In Fy 2018-19. But No Evidence Pointed Out By Ao To Prove That The Alleged Cash Payment Was Made During The Previous Year Relevant To A.Y. 2012-13. 2 Mahesh D. Tekchandani Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

additional ground of appeal to the effect that reassessment proceedings initiated by Assessing Officer under section 148 were illegal and void ab initio. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that Assessing Officer should have issued notice under Section 153C and should have framed assessment under section 153C, read with section 153A ... under section 153C, notice issued under section 148 and reassessment proceedings became illegal and void ab initio. In appeal ITAT held that on facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once

Petrofils Co- Operative Ltd., Vadoadara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

ITA 549/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 57

ground that the appellant has failed to prove that such expenses were deductible under section 57(iii) of the Act. 1.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the matter had already been travelled upto Tribunal and the appellant has brought on record the facts on the basis

Petrofils Co-Operative Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT Circle-1(2), Vadodara

ITA 547/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 57

ground that the appellant has failed to prove that such expenses were deductible under section 57(iii) of the Act. 1.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the matter had already been travelled upto Tribunal and the appellant has brought on record the facts on the basis