← 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)

Pankaj Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(8), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2949/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 250Section 69ASection 80CSection 80G

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal was disposed of by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of the assessee and without adjudicating the issues on merits. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appeal ... restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for disposing of the grounds on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has no serious objection in remitting the matter to the file of the learned Commissioner

Neelkanth Polymers, Sonepat vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalure, ITO Ward-3, Sonepat

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2865/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 361Section 40A(3)

portal of the Income Tax Department submits that as a matter of 3 fact that the assessee filed adjournment letter but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that there was no complaint by the assessee. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee further submits that ... appeal may be restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing. 5. 3. Learned Departmental Representative has no serious objection in restoring the appeal to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre

Pahari Mata Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT Reang-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 19/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pahari Mata Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. V. The Assistant 761, Village – Anaura Commissioner Of Near Indira Canal Income Tax Faizabad Road, Lucknow Range-I, Lucknow Pan:Aabap6918L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 04 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 04 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, DR
Section 43C

Swati Pawa vs. DCIT, New Delhi, reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi- Trib.), has submitted that when an appeal is filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) is duty bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order on merits on all the points which arose for determination in the appellate ... proceedings, including on all grounds of appeal; and that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of appeal on merits. He accordingly prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC

M/S Shree Ganesh Jewellers Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle V(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.J. Shalley, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

following, namely:- (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide ... determined on the basis of an estimate, if the accounts are correct and complete to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, but the method employed is such that

Santipur Thana Co-Operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd., Nadia vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 135/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

apparent from any information in the return). We also observe that the counsel for the assessee has filed copies of orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC in many other cases of cooperative societies having similar issues, in which it has been held that section

Jatrapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Nadia vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 134/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

apparent from any information in the return). We also observe that the counsel for the assessee has filed copies of orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC in many other cases of cooperative societies having similar issues, in which it has been held that section

ACIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M B Patil Construction Limited, Mumbai

ITA 98/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S M.B.Patil Constructions Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 303/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Sh. Darshan Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

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

ITA 632/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 147

account. Thus he made addition of the above mentioned income to the return of the assessee. 4. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Income Tax (CIT) against the order of the Assessing Authority contending that no addition was liable to be made. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 916/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.915 & 916/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 15.02.2023, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 19.01.2022 & 20.01.2022 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Issue Involved Is

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

Section 270A has defined the word “under reporting”. The Section is reproduced here as under : 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 915/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.915 & 916/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 15.02.2023, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 19.01.2022 & 20.01.2022 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Issue Involved Is

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

Section 270A has defined the word “under reporting”. The Section is reproduced here as under : 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income

Amanda Joy Puravankara, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(c)Section 234CSection 250

Bangalore dated 17.11.2023 for the assessment year 2015- 16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 '(Act)' to the extent which is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence ... appellant is bad, erroneous in law, addition made is excessive and contrary' to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 3. As regards the first house: a. The Ld. Officers below misinterpreted the provisions of Section

ITO, Ward- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Vavasi Telegence P. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viiB)Section 68

Aggrieved against the deletion of additions the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. It is noticed that before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the counsel of the assessee had filed certain papers which were not placed on record before the Assessing Officer. The papers filed were - order ... against one Shri Kamal Jit Ahluwalia, who was one of the share-subscribers. Relying on the documents filed on behalf of the assessee learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4.1 From the perusal of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)’s order, it is apparent that

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 678/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

only to the provision made towards rural advances, is not in accordance with the statutory provision. On the other hand, the view expressed by Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing assessee's claim of deduction is as per the statutory provision. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 677/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

only to the provision made towards rural advances, is not in accordance with the statutory provision. On the other hand, the view expressed by Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing assessee's claim of deduction is as per the statutory provision. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 1343/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

only to the provision made towards rural advances, is not in accordance with the statutory provision. On the other hand, the view expressed by Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing assessee's claim of deduction is as per the statutory provision. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 1321/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

only to the provision made towards rural advances, is not in accordance with the statutory provision. On the other hand, the view expressed by Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing assessee's claim of deduction is as per the statutory provision. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad, Kondapur Hyderabad vs. Sangam Wires, Kalaburagi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 371/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.356/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sangam Wires Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1 Pan:Acnfs5309K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sangam Wires Ward 11(1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acnfs5309K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

gross profit of the assessee. He also rejected the books of account and estimated the assessee's business profits at Rs. 5 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee had made purchases from other parties in the open market. Therefore, he retained 30 per cent. of the purchases cost ... purchases should be retained in the hands of the assessee as business profits. On appeal to the High Court : Held, dismissing the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) believed that the purchases were not bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of account. That being

Sangam Wires, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.356/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sangam Wires Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1 Pan:Acnfs5309K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sangam Wires Ward 11(1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acnfs5309K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

gross profit of the assessee. He also rejected the books of account and estimated the assessee's business profits at Rs. 5 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee had made purchases from other parties in the open market. Therefore, he retained 30 per cent. of the purchases cost ... purchases should be retained in the hands of the assessee as business profits. On appeal to the High Court : Held, dismissing the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) believed that the purchases were not bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of account. That being

Il&Fs Maritime Infrastructure Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3558/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal Vora &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 14A

No.3558/Mum/2023 IL & FS Maritime Infrastructure Company Ltd. Vs. The DCIT, 14(1)(1) “(9) There is no perversity in the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT on this issue. Besides in Nirved Traders (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court has held that disallowance under section ... have exceeded Rs. 45,371/- It is only because the Assessees voluntarily offered a disallowance to the extent of Rs.65,000/-, that the Commissioner (Appeals) made a disallowance to the extent of Rs. 65,000/- Thus, the first substantial question of law is required to be answered against the Revenue