← 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)

Ksj Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

ITA 1110/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1110/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ksj Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Grant Lane, Room Central Circle -1(1), No. 218, Kolkata – 700 012. Chennai – 600 0034. [Pan:Aadcc-5913-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Rama Krishnan, FCA and Shri. Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)Section 153CSection 234BSection 68

filed through an Additional Evidence Petition under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the appellant company. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Act. :-3-: ITA. No: 1110/Chny/2023 For these grounds and such other grounds

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 840/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

number 2754/M/2014 and ITA number 4203/M/2014 by coordinate bench as Under: - "38. In ground No. 5, revenue has challenged the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing assessee's claim of additional depreciation. 39. Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee ... Assessing Officer was not convinced. Accordingly, he disallowed the additional depreciation claimed of * 1,72,86,752/-. Assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Taking note of the decision cited by the assessee including the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed holding that the learned CIT appeal is correct in allowing

ITA 269/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

number 2754/M/2014 and ITA number 4203/M/2014 by coordinate bench as Under: - "38. In ground No. 5, revenue has challenged the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing assessee's claim of additional depreciation. 39. Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee ... Assessing Officer was not convinced. Accordingly, he disallowed the additional depreciation claimed of 1,72,86,752/-. Assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Taking note of the decision cited by the assessee including the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2315/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

stated that similar disallowances were made while passing the assessment order for AY 2009-10 and AY 2008-09. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), complete relief was granted on identical facts. However, I do not find merit in the contentions filed by the appellant and therefore

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6506/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

stated that similar disallowances were made while passing the assessment order for AY 2009-10 and AY 2008-09. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), complete relief was granted on identical facts. However, I do not find merit in the contentions filed by the appellant and therefore

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6296/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

stated that similar disallowances were made while passing the assessment order for AY 2009-10 and AY 2008-09. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), complete relief was granted on identical facts. However, I do not find merit in the contentions filed by the appellant and therefore

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5925/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

stated that similar disallowances were made while passing the assessment order for AY 2009-10 and AY 2008-09. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), complete relief was granted on identical facts. However, I do not find merit in the contentions filed by the appellant and therefore

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5903/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

stated that similar disallowances were made while passing the assessment order for AY 2009-10 and AY 2008-09. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), complete relief was granted on identical facts. However, I do not find merit in the contentions filed by the appellant and therefore

Jarina Begum, Kota vs. ITO Ward -1(4), Kota

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

ITA 675/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &
Section 120Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 234ASection 68

Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and) on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the (Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the [Commissioner (Appeals), may for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in clause)" writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions

Associated Soapstone Distributing Co Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jaipur

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

ITA 243/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 43B

this case, can halt this machinery by ignoring either the procedure in appeal prescribed U/s 250 ofl. T. Act or powers of Commissioner (Appeals) prescribed U/s 251 of |. T Act. 32 ITA243/JP/2023 ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR CIT(A), the first appellate authority, cannot dismiss

Avery Dennison (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Sahani, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

officer for reconsidering the issue. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. However, at this stage, we must make it clear, we have come to the aforesaid conclusion based on the facts involved

Acil Navasar Jan Rural Development Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) Ward1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3743/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Priti Kamble (Accountant)For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

Calcutta bench of the Tribunal held that the Audit Report can even be filed at the time of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). n be filed at the time of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). n be filed at the time of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, Raebareli vs. ITO-1, Raebareli

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

ITA 339/LKW/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, Vs. Ito-1, 1 Beliganj, Raebareli Raebareli - 229001 Pan: Agvpj 2114K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148

appeal on 12.9.2023, the representative of the taxpayer again sought time to collect the documents, but without giving proper time, the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) kept the order of the Assessing Officer as it is, which is completely unfair. Since the taxpayer was a small businessman, he did not have ... right place, but they were not available during the hearing. Due to this, the taxpayer missed sending his documents to the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals), While the taxpayer has all the documents available with you at the time of filing the appeal like purchase bill, bank statement, cash register, bank

Income Tax Office, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Harinadh Ananthaneni, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Harinadh Ananthaneni, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 28/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ananthaneni Harinadh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolavenu Village, Ward-2(3), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (""यथ"/ Respondent) (Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

report of the same. For the sake of brevity, we extract below section 250(4) of the Act. “Sec. 250(4): The [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing Officer ... make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals).” 8 From the plain reading of the above, the Act confers powers U/s. 250(4) of the Act to the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by making further

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-8(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

arise in the circumstances of the case and the Ld. Assessing Officer misread the essence of the statute in this regard and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding such impugned estimate made without rejecting the books of account and has thus misconstrued the law which is not in consonance

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Bleand

Section 1Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

decisions relied upon and perused the orders of the departmental authorities as well as the material placed on record. The Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) have disallowed ESOP'S OF LAW L claim of exemption under section 10(23FB) of the Act broadly on the following grounds:- ) RIBL Investment ... assessee has violated the terms on the basis of which registration as a venture capital fund was granted by the SEBI. 11. Further, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has said that after amendment to section 10(23FB) of the Act by Finance Act, 2007, w.e.f, 1st April 2008, only income earned from