“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)

Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coafields Limited, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 204/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

surface rights as well as the right to possession in respect of leasehold land for enduring period was a capital expenditure and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in upholding the action of the assessing officer in treating the same as capital expenditure and thereby disallowing the deduction claimed

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 201/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Raiyani Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.8/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Raiyani Brothers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Dumaswala Compound, Near Ward-3(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Sargam Doctor House, Hira Baug, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)

submit that I have filed this appeal on 02.02.2021 under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2012-13 made on the 17.05.2019 vide ITA No.8/SRT/2021, which was communicated to us on 06.06.2019. Though this appeal should have been filed

Cock Brand Sinner Bidis Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 1983/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

assessing officer was not convinced and proceeded to compute ALV of the unsold flats and added to the income of the assessee. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also sustained the additions. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the decision ... representative agreed that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee; however, he relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the issue arising for consideration is, whether notional ALV can be computed

ITO, Ward-58(7), New Delhi vs. The Co-Operative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1605/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-58(7), The Co-Operative Urban Thrift New Delhi & Credit Society Ltd., 31/64, Vs. Bhikam Singh Colony, (Pan:Aabat2253J) Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara Delhi-1100 32

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

learned First Appellate Authority. 5. After considering the submission of the assessee and relying upon the ratio laid down in certain judicial precedents, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the primary activity of the assessee is lending money to its members. Therefore, the interest income earned has to be treated ... other co-operative banks is allowable as deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). In so far as interest earned from the other banks, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that since such interest of Rs.37,712 is below the threshold limit of Rs.50,000, it can be allowed as deduction under Section

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Tapesh Tyagi, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1344/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle, Tapesh Tyagi, Ghaziabad. R-2/202 Vs. Raj Nagar, (Pan:Acgpt1510N) Ghaziabad

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT - DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 154Section 69A

Being aggrieved with the higher tax rate charged under Section 115BBE of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Being convinced with various submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the income subjected to tax at the rate prescribed under Section 115BBE

Global Green Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4369/DEL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05 Global Green Company Ltd., Dcit, Circle-12(1) First India Place, New Delhi. Tower ‘C’, Mehrauli Road, Vs. Gurgaon, Harnaya Pin: 122 002 (Pan:Aaacr0635H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

Officer completed the assessment disallowing the deduction as per directions of learned CIT. Against the order so passed the assessee preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and being unsuccessful, went before the Tribunal. 5. After considering assessee’s submission that the deductions claimed are not in the nature of provisions ... while examining the issue the Assessing Officer 3 - AY: 2004-05 again repeated the disallowance. Though, the assessee went in appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, the disallowances were upheld. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee reiterated that, though, in the financial statement the nomenclature

Pratima Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present cross-appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 416/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(2)Section 250Section 254

Tribunal in all these cases, wherein identical facts and issues are involved, therefore, we also set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore back the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment with similar directions. The Assessing Officer shall provide

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cent -Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. Smt Pratima H. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the present cross-appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1180/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(2)Section 250Section 254

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 731/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

processing cost to the Head Office does not fall within the ambit of definition of “royalty” under Article 12(3)(a). 17. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Senior Counsel have strongly relied upon the decision of the co–ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Kotak Mahindra Primus ... covered within the scope of expression “royalty” under Article12(3)(a) of the India Belgium DTAA. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is affirmed. 20. Since we have already held that the data processing cost paid by the assessee does not amount to royalty, consequently, there

Delhi Policy Group (Reg), New Delhi vs. ITO(E), Ward 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 191/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 34

assessment order and, thus, order so passed was liable to be rectified. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the assessee's application. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Hon'ble ITAT has held that "8. The assessee appellant intends

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1) (1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1883/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Sarika Agrawal, Indore vs. The ITO 2(4), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Ms.Sarika Agrawal, Ito, 53/1, Chatribagh, 2(4), बनाम/ 503, Nidhi Apartment, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan:Apppa8768K Assessee By Shri N.D.Dave & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

appeal for non-prosecution without following the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision

Sumit Goel, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68Section 69C

considered to be part of the income in the hands of the assessee. However, on appeal preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the assessee U/s 143(3) r/w 147 of the Act,1961 all the factual statements were examined at length and the Commissioner (Appeals), after due appreciation of material ... could not have been challenged more so when the identity of existence of the investor is not disputed and accordingly upheld the view of Commissioner (Appeals), at the same time further observed that merely on the basis of oral statement of Kripa Shanker Sharma recorded before the search authorities that

Ashwin Remesh Saksena, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-16(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2233/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala/ Shri RajivFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69C

favour of the assessee. 3. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment orders, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order

Bona Sera Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1750/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1750/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bona Sera Hospitality Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Range-7(2) Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Bhawan, M. K. Road, Llp, Esplanade House, 2Nd Mumbai-400020. Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs7518L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. M. Golvala & Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.03.2023 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Partly Allowing The Appeal Of Assessee By Directing Ao To Verify Addition Of Rs.1,91,956/- & Rs.4,74,558/-. & For Not Deleting Rs.3,67,773/- (Amount Assessee Could Has Not Reconcile).

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)

made by Assessing Officer (B) 10,34,287 % of unreconciled items to total revenue as per Form 26AS 1.7565% (B)/(A) Relief granted by Commissioner (Appeals) 1,91,956 (after due verification) 4,74,558 Addition confirmed in respect of unreconciled items (C) 3,67,773 % of unreconciled items

DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi vs. U & I Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5912/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-27(1), U & I Business Services Pvt. New Delhi Vs. Ltd., F-41, Ndse Part-I, New Delhi-1100 49 (Pan:Aaacu0461E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Department By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit - Dr Assessee By : Shri Nl Anand, Adv.

For Appellant: Shri NL Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT - DR

Section 24

aforesaid addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority. Being convinced AY: 2014-15 with the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee’s claim that the rental income earned has to be assessed as income from house property. 5. We have considered rival submissions ... rental expenses of Rs.60,00,000. Assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned First Appellate Authority. 9. Having factually verified the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that out of three properties taken on rent, one of the properties situated at F-41, NDSE Part-I is being used as registered

ACIT Circle-54(1), New Delhi vs. Jagmag Builders, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4776/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Circle-54(1), Jagmag Builders, New Delhi Vs. G-42, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-1100 24 (Pan:Aaefj1537D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri CS Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

addition/disallowance before learned First Appellate Authority. After appreciating the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material available on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both the additions. 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. AY: 2015-164 6. From the evidences furnished

Vikas Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 256/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 256/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

aforesaid order are culled out as under: “4. We have carefully examined the record as well as duly considered the rival contentions. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have categorically held that in the present case, there is no record of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer that

Royal Sales & Co., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.559/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Royal Sales & Co., Income Tax Officer, 504, Arihant Park, Parle Vs. Ward- 1(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Point, Surat–395007 Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr2757F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

observed as under:- 'Question No.1 pertains to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of low gross profit. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, however, deleted such addition after examining the material on record. In particular, the Tribunal while upholding the order of the Commissioner ... seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence on record. No question of law, therefore, arises particularly when the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently held in favour of the assessee. Issue No.2 pertains to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account