← 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)

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8364/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when the jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. . The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the order ... Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when the jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. 2. The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the order

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8363/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when the jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. . The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the order ... Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when the jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. 2. The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the order

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8362/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when the jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. . The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the order ... Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when the jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. 2. The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the order

Jamnadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 8361/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(34)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when the jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. . The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the order ... Appellant submits the Assessing Officer (AO) erred assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A) erred in confirming his action, when the jurisdictional conditions under section 147 were not satisfied. 2. The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the order

JCIT(OSD), Circle 111, Dehradun, Subhash Road vs. M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Bahadrabad Industrial Area, Haridwar

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 82/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

sales made by assessee were duly reflected in VAT returns of assessee, addition made by Assessing Officer under section 69A was rightly deleted by Commissioner (Appeals). Further, in case of " [2025] 170 taxmann.com 639 (Delhi - Trib.) [25-09-2024] S. Balaji Mech-Tech (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer

Amar Nath Singh, Ara vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 460/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: The Itat. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Given Explanation Which Is As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(5)

prescribed statutory period due to a genuine and unavoidable circumstance. At the time of filing, it was noticed that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correctly reflected in the order issued through NFAC. This technical discrepancy created hurdles in filing the appeal through the prescribed e-filing portal

Sandhya Singh, Rohit Nagar, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(3) Bhopal, Aaykar Bhawan, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/IND/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Sandhya Singh vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 6. During the appellate proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) issued several notices under section 250 of the Act granting opportunities to the assessee to file written submissions and supporting documentary evidence. However, except

Majji Srinivasa Rao, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kothagudem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 370/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate
Section 250

information section of the Form No. 35, which is to the following effect: fs FORM NO. 35 [see rute 45} | Appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Acknowledgement Number -458454750280322 Personal Information : | Name of Entity MAJJI SRINIVASA RAO AKBPM9555F 9-1-4, pilot colonyVeerapuram

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1105/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not declaring the Proceedings u/s. 153C and the consequent Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r/w Section 153C as invalid ... Accounts or Documents pertaining to or containing any information relating to Appellant were seized in the search and seizure operations u/s 132, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that Provision of Section 153C is applicable to Appellant. 3) That without prejudice to above, since there was no Satisfaction

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

ITA 1104/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not declaring the Proceedings u/s. 153C and the consequent Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r/w Section 153C as invalid ... Accounts or Documents pertaining to or containing any information relating to Appellant were seized in the search and seizure operations u/s 132, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that Provision of Section 153C is applicable to Appellant. 3) That without prejudice to above, since there was no Satisfaction

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

ITA 1103/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not declaring the Proceedings u/s. 153C and the consequent Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r/w Section 153C as invalid ... Accounts or Documents pertaining to or containing any information relating to Appellant were seized in the search and seizure operations u/s 132, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that Provision of Section 153C is applicable to Appellant. 3) That without prejudice to above, since there was no Satisfaction

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

ITA 1102/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not declaring the Proceedings u/s. 153C and the consequent Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r/w Section 153C as invalid ... Accounts or Documents pertaining to or containing any information relating to Appellant were seized in the search and seizure operations u/s 132, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that Provision of Section 153C is applicable to Appellant. 3) That without prejudice to above, since there was no Satisfaction

Swastik Vegetable Oil Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

ITA 1101/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not declaring the Proceedings u/s. 153C and the consequent Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r/w Section 153C as invalid ... Accounts or Documents pertaining to or containing any information relating to Appellant were seized in the search and seizure operations u/s 132, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that Provision of Section 153C is applicable to Appellant. 3) That without prejudice to above, since there was no Satisfaction

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5375/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, SR-DR a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 68

facie case exists for reopening. We find no infirmity in the sanction We find no infirmity in the sanction so granted. 7.7 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the objections raised ... infirmity in to tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. 7.9 The grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of The grounds raised by the assessee

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5374/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 250Section 68

only to examine whether a prima facie case exists for reopening. We find no infirmity in the sanction so granted. 7.7 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the objections raised by the assessee by relying upon the settled legal position that at the stage of issuance of notice under ... formed a bona fide belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. 7.9 The grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment are, therefore, dismissed. 8. In Ground

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5373/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5372/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5371/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, SR-DR a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah
Section 147Section 68

facie case exists for reopening. We find no infirmity in the sanction We find no infirmity in the sanction so granted. 7.7 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the objections raised ... infirmity in to tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. 7.9 The grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of The grounds raised by the assessee

DCIT Central Circle 1 Delhi, Delhi vs. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd, Lucknow

ITA 4679/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
Section 142Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

grounds decided against him. It can be easily appreciated that all prayers in the appeal may be allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), however, some of the contentions of the appellant may not have appealed to the Commissioner. When such an order of the Commissioner is at large before the Tribunal ... Sangh Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 321 (Guj) in which the Court observed as under: “19. In case a party having succeeded before Commissioner (Appeals) opts not to file cross objection even when an appeal has been preferred by the other party, from that it is not possible

Claas Agricultural Machinery Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4563/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

jurisdictional High Court under sub-section (2) of section 260A in the relevant case against the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner shall, on receipt of a communication from ... prescribed within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, stating that an appeal on the question of law arising