← 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)

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3039/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

Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel, Adipur vs. DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

relevant to reproduce the provisions of Section 271AAB of the Act, which read as under:- 271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer [or the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, not- withstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section ... specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b). (1A) The Assessing Officer [or the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section

Shri Ashish Kanjibhai Rathod, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 152/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. J. Boricha, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) held that only cash book was filed before him, but balance sheet, profit and loss account, capital account, business

Sunil Pagaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 54F

brought to its notice by the assessee or by the deductor or by the collector, and where the authority concerned is 71[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), by the Assessing Officer also. Sunil Pagaria vs. ITO (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

firm in the names of its partners which he did not accept and added to the income of the firm. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition holding that the firm had satisfactorily accounted for the credits. On second appeal, the Tribunal affirmed the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals ... against the person who has not been able to explain the investment. In the present case, there was the concurrent finding of both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as of the Tribunal that the firm had satisfactorily explained the aforesaid entries. Therefore, no addition in the instant case could

Nisha Rungta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer, accordingly, and also directed him to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) Accordingly, Assessing Officer completed reassessments and imposed penalty- Commissioner (Appeals), however, set aside penalty which action was also confirmed by Tribunal - Whether since assessee himself estimated amount of income, which he had concealed

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Tribunal held vs. ITO (1992) 42 ITD 62, that the Audit Report can even be filed at the time of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Swajan Pariwar Trust vs.ADIT(E) A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble (1997) 57 TTJ (Mum) (SMC) 77, Mumbai Bench of Tribunal ... Tribunal held that the Audit Report can even be filed at the time of Association vs. ITO (1992) 42 ITD 62, appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 24 Swajan Pariwar Trust vs. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of Tribunal that where the trust filed

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Tribunal held vs. ITO (1992) 42 ITD 62, that the Audit Report can even be filed at the time of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Swajan Pariwar Trust vs.ADIT(E) A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble (1997) 57 TTJ (Mum) (SMC) 77, Mumbai Bench of Tribunal ... Tribunal held that the Audit Report can even be filed at the time of Association vs. ITO (1992) 42 ITD 62, appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 24 Swajan Pariwar Trust vs. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of Tribunal that where the trust filed

M/S. Tirupati Microtech Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. DCIT, Udaipur

ITA 23/JODH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Lodha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR
Section 80I

Having taken note of the fact that identical nature of dispute was decided in favour of the assessee in the preceding assessment years, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee ... decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 11. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged disallowance of depreciation claimed

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Tirupati Microtech P.Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 16/JODH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Lodha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR
Section 80I

Having taken note of the fact that identical nature of dispute was decided in favour of the assessee in the preceding assessment years, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee ... decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 11. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged disallowance of depreciation claimed

M/S. Tirupati Microtech Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Udaipur

ITA 264/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Lodha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR
Section 80I

Having taken note of the fact that identical nature of dispute was decided in favour of the assessee in the preceding assessment years, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee ... decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 11. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged disallowance of depreciation claimed

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 252/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Lodha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR
Section 80I

Having taken note of the fact that identical nature of dispute was decided in favour of the assessee in the preceding assessment years, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee ... decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 11. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged disallowance of depreciation claimed

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Tirupati Microtech P.Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 593/JODH/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Lodha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR
Section 80I

Having taken note of the fact that identical nature of dispute was decided in favour of the assessee in the preceding assessment years, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee ... decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue and restore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 11. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged disallowance of depreciation claimed

Manohar Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur

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

ITA 159/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

interest by account payee cheques, that copies of bank statements had been filed, that the creditors had filed confirmation letters, had appared before the Commissioner (Appeals) and admitted having advanced money to the assessee and had filed returns of their incomes. The Tribunal, therefore, took the view that

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Maharashtra vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle 2(1)(1)-Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1717/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe, &
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Head Office does not fall within the ambit of definition of “royalty” under Article 12(3)(a). I.T.A. No. 1717/Del/2022 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 Ltd. (supra ... 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 41 I.T.A. No. 1717/Del/2022 affirmed. 20. Since we have already held that the data processing cost paid by the assessee does not amount

Golden India Foundation, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 98/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Golden India Foundation AA-13, Jay Ambey Nagar, Opp. Old Jaipur Hospital, Tonk Road, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Exemption- Ward Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTG 3675 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C.L. Yadav, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Da

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

loan could not be regarded as application of income towards the charitable objects of the trust and rejected the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the ground that the property of the trust was in a Odilapidated condition and fresh construction had to be undertaken ... object of the trust and hence, the repayment of loan ought to have been treated as eligible application. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was confirmed by the Tribunal. The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the repayment of loan taken from the bank

U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi Delhi, Delhi

ITA 2112/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250

returning the following findings: From reading of sections 250 and 251, it is very clear that once an appeal is preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make ... further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in section 250(4). Further, section 250(6) obliges the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise

U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi Delhi, Delhi

ITA 2105/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250

returning the following findings: From reading of sections 250 and 251, it is very clear that once an appeal is preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make ... further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in section 250(4). Further, section 250(6) obliges the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise

U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi Delhi, Delhi

ITA 2104/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250

returning the following findings: From reading of sections 250 and 251, it is very clear that once an appeal is preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make ... further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in section 250(4). Further, section 250(6) obliges the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise

U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi Delhi, Delhi

ITA 2103/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250

returning the following findings: From reading of sections 250 and 251, it is very clear that once an appeal is preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make ... further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in section 250(4). Further, section 250(6) obliges the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise