“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)

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Campus Eai India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

taxable in India under sections 9(1)(vii) and 115(a)(iii) at 40 per cent of gross amount. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held part amount to be taxable as royalty under Article 12 and remaining amount representing additional attendance fee was held taxable under Article 7, subject

Kanta Gupta, Karnal vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7367/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyaita No.7367 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt. Kanta Gupta Vs. Dcit 2249, Sec-7, Karnal Circle – 7(1), Haryana – 132 001 New Delhi Pan No. Aefpg 9971 D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita No.7368 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Surender Gupta Vs. Dcit 2249, Sec-7, Karnal Circle – 7(1), Haryana – 132 001 New Delhi Pan No. Adepk 5887 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 150Section 153Section 2(22)(e)

invoked the provisions of section 150 for issuing the impugned notices. This invocation was in turn based on an order made by the Commissioner (Appeals). This order contains no direction as contemplated by section 150. Even assuming that this order contains a finding affecting the petitioners, it is apparent that

ITO Ward 17(1), New Delhi vs. Meyer Apparel Pvt. Ltd., Haryana

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6453/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarito, Vs. Meyer Apparel Pvt. Ltd, Ward-17(1), 42, Milestone Delhi Jaipur Highway, New Delhi Kherki Daula, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach3928L

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 28

contract but the assessee never claimed deduction for payment of interest under section 36(1)(iii). In the case at hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon section 41(1) and held that the assessee had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating

Shri Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani, Rajkot vs. The ITO(TDS)-2, Rajkot

Accordingly, in our considered view, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence the present appeal is being dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 21/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 119(2)(a)Section 194Section 194lSection 201Section 201(1)Section 220

assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 154, Section 250, Section 270A, Section ... Section 271A 90[, Section 271AAB, Section 271AAC, Section 271AAD], Section 271J or Section 272A; or [(aa) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 154, Section 250, Section 270A, Section 271, Section 271A, Section 271AAC, Section 271AAD or Section 271J; or] (b) an order passed by an Assessing

U S Roofs Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2111/MUM/2023[2005-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2005-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 V. M/S.U.S.Roofs Ltd., The Ito-10(3), 115/116, Jk Chambers, Mumbai. Sec-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. [Pan: Aaacu 3633 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

relevant provisions for consideration are as under:— 'Procedure in appeal. 250 (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. AY.2005-06 M/s. U. S. Roofs Ltd :: 4 :: (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry ... report the result of the same to the Commissioner (Appeals). (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) 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. (6A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Powers of the [Commissioner (Appeals)] "Section

Suraj Exports, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 1327/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Om Praksh Kant & Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Exports, Vs. Acit.Circle-19(3), De 8011/12/13 Bharat Mumbai. Diamond Bourse, Bkc ,Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Akshay.J.Shah.Ar Revenue By : Shri.Nayanjyoti Nath.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 254 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Akshay.J.Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Nayanjyoti Nath.Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer has found that M/s. A2 Jewels and M/s. Amit Diamonds were bogus entities. However, as rightly held by the Suraj Exports, Mumbai. Commissioner (Appeals), though the two entities were found to be bogus, the assessee had, in fact, purchased diamonds which were used for the purpose of making ... diamond jewellery and therefore, the sale of such diamond jewellery has been accepted by the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in not disallowing the entire purchase and in restricting the same to 3% of the amount of purchases and the Tribunal justified in confirming

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. M/S Contessa Commercial Co. Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 72/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

controversy, therefore, we deem it appropriate to take note of all these provisions, which read as under:- “Procedure in appeal:- 250.: The Commissioner (Appeals) shall fix a day and place for the hearing of the appeal 15 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/s. Contessa Commercial Co. Pvt. Limited and shall give ... appeal is preferred. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x Powers of the Commissioner (Appeals); 251.: (1) In disposing off an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), shall have the following powers: (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment

Manoj Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

which is reproduced herein below: Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. “271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— (c) has concealed ... under this Act,— (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate

DCIT Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Joginder Pal Gupta, Sonipat

ITA 1283/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Misra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vii)

assessee in the context of facts and material on record as well as ratio laid down in the judicial precedents cited before him, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the services rendered by the assessee do not qualify either as managerial or technical or even consultancy services. Further, he observed that ... change in the factual matrix in the impugned assessment year compared to the past assessment years. Thus, considering the above aspects, learned Commissioner (Appeals) ultimately concluded that the receipts from general operation and administrative services would not qualify as 5 ITA No. 1283/Del/2022 ACIT vs. Avnet Technologies Hong Kong

DCIT, International Taxation Circle-Gurugram, Gurugram vs. Vikas Arora, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2335/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

recorded has erroneously mentioned about non-filing of return of income by the assessee. Whereas, the assessee has filed his return of income. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), ultimately, concluded that the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is invalid. While doing so, he also relied upon various judicial ... precedents. 6. Insofar as the merits of the addition is concerned, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in the return of income filed for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee has considered the credit entries appearing in the bank statements, and has also offered explanation regarding the source of such

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Avnet Technologies Hong Kong Ltd, Hong Kong

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1283/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Misra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vii)

Tapi Jwil Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

required by sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of the international ... case a person fails to furnish information or document required by sub-section (3) of section 92D to the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals). The penalty imposable is discretionary and not mandatory. Section 271G has to be interpreted reasonably and in a rational manner. Information or documentation, which

Tapi Jwil Jv, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3316/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Yadav, Adv

Section 14A

added to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment order. Assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 8. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record as well as judicial precedents cited before ... learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that domestic PLR cannot be applied to benchmark the rate of interest charged on foreign currency loans advanced to AEs located in foreign countries. While coming to such conclusion, learned Commissioner (Appeals) specifically relied upon the decision of the ITA. No. 3316/Del/2018 Hon'ble jurisdictional High

Shri Arun Agrawal, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 214/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 214/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Arun Agrawal 85, Pandri Textile Market, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan :Acjpa2323D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

ACIT, Hon'ble Agra Bench of ITAT held that "Where additional ground of grievance against Assessing Officer's order was not raised before Commissioner (Appeals) raising of same before Tribunal was not sustainable."[2013] 34 taxmann.com 220 (Agra - Trib.) g) Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Chaturlal Gond, Bhopal vs. The ITO-1, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 198/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chatur Lal Gond, Ito-1, 72, Balajee Niwas

Section 144Section 250(6)

judicious view; condone delay and proceed with appeal. 5. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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

ITO, TDS-2, Jodhpur vs. Rajendra Kumbhat, HUF, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenuebearing ITA No

ITA 34/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271CSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

Chapter shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or an appeal to the in Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever

Sanjay Gurdasmal Chawla, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2387/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjaygurdasmalchawla, Vs. Acit – 21 1301, Lake Superior 2Nd Floor, Piramal Phase No. 5, As Marg Chamber, Lalbaug, Chandivali Farm Road, Lower Parel, Powai- Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400076. Pan/Gir No. : Abopc7669L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manish Trivedi.CA.ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishore Dhule.CIT DR

herein after referred to as the said rules), for rule 45, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:- 45. Form of appeal to Commissioner (Appeals).- (1) An appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) shall be made in Form No. 35. (2) Form No. 35 shall be furnished in the following manner

Genxt Mobile LLP, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2106/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the rate of interest to 12% allowed by the Assessing Officer as against 18% claimed by the appellant ... Genxt Mobile LLP ITA no.2106/Mum./2023 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the rate of Interest paid to related party is restricted to 12% without considering the prevailing market rate of Interest for Unsecured

M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3280/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

proceed to dispose of the appeal of the assessee in ITA.No. 3280/MUM/2008. 8. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant has a permanent establishment in India under Article 5(2)(k) of the Tax Treaty between India ... Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have specifically directed the Assessing Officer to assess 5 ITA NO. 3039/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2005-06) Linklaters the appellant only in respect of fees of £ 300,491 55, which were relatable to work performed in India. 3 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred