← 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)

Sitaram Narayandas Patel (Deceased) by His Legal Heir Ashok S Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 22(3) at Present Jurisdiction With ACIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 901/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 901/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 900/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिधम/ Sitaram Narayandas Patel Acit, Circle-22(3) (Deceased) By His Legal Heir At Present Jurisdiction With Vs. Ashok Patel Acit, Circle-22(1) Plot No. 91, Ambey Vila, Piramal Chamber Lalbaug, Next To Grant Hyatt, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vakola Bridge, Shivaji Nagar, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpp6860D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Madhuri Tambe Revenue By: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 08.02.2023 For Ay. 2014-15 & Order Dated 09.02.2023 For Ay. 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee For Ay 2014-15, Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit (A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.1,00,00,000/- [Donations Of Rs.75 Lakhs Paid To M/S. Sahara Health & Education Society (Hereinafter “M/S. Sahara Health”) & Rs.25 Lakhs Paid To M/S. Tulsi Gramudyog Seva

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Madhuri TambeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 35A

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

Sitaram Narayandas Patel(Deceased) by His Legal Heir Ashok S. Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 22(3) at Present Jurisdiction With ACIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 900/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 901/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 900/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिधम/ Sitaram Narayandas Patel Acit, Circle-22(3) (Deceased) By His Legal Heir At Present Jurisdiction With Vs. Ashok Patel Acit, Circle-22(1) Plot No. 91, Ambey Vila, Piramal Chamber Lalbaug, Next To Grant Hyatt, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vakola Bridge, Shivaji Nagar, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpp6860D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Madhuri Tambe Revenue By: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 08.02.2023 For Ay. 2014-15 & Order Dated 09.02.2023 For Ay. 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee For Ay 2014-15, Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit (A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.1,00,00,000/- [Donations Of Rs.75 Lakhs Paid To M/S. Sahara Health & Education Society (Hereinafter “M/S. Sahara Health”) & Rs.25 Lakhs Paid To M/S. Tulsi Gramudyog Seva

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Madhuri TambeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 35A

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

DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon vs. Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7126/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble

Section 115J

concluded that the amount claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed in the impugned assessment year. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) endorsed the decision of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record ... aforesaid disallowance before learned first appellate authority. After considering the submission of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of Assessing Officer. 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Before us, learned counsel appearing

Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation, Circle, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7028/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble

Section 115J

concluded that the amount claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed in the impugned assessment year. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) endorsed the decision of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record ... aforesaid disallowance before learned first appellate authority. After considering the submission of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of Assessing Officer. 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Before us, learned counsel appearing

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S Carin Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2249/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble

Section 115J

concluded that the amount claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed in the impugned assessment year. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) endorsed the decision of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record ... aforesaid disallowance before learned first appellate authority. After considering the submission of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of Assessing Officer. 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Before us, learned counsel appearing

M/S. Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2229/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble

Section 115J

concluded that the amount claimed by the assessee cannot be allowed in the impugned assessment year. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) endorsed the decision of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record ... aforesaid disallowance before learned first appellate authority. After considering the submission of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of Assessing Officer. 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Before us, learned counsel appearing

Kl Envitech Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Thane

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 768/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

lease basis. He, therefore, did not reduce the deduction under section 80-IA while computing book profit under section 115JA. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee had entered into an agreement with the port under the BOLT scheme, i.e., built, own, lease and transfer scheme in respect ... said cranes supplied to the port. In holding so the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on the Circulars No. 793 dated 3-62000, in which it has been clarified that structures at ports for storage, loading and unloading etc. will be included in the definition of Port for the purpose

Kl Envitech Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Thane

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 767/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

lease basis. He, therefore, did not reduce the deduction under section 80-IA while computing book profit under section 115JA. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee had entered into an agreement with the port under the BOLT scheme, i.e., built, own, lease and transfer scheme in respect ... said cranes supplied to the port. In holding so the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on the Circulars No. 793 dated 3-62000, in which it has been clarified that structures at ports for storage, loading and unloading etc. will be included in the definition of Port for the purpose

DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Spicejet Limited, Gurgaon

ITA 2183/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43A

Spicejet Ltd. 7 disallowed various other expenses under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing ... Rs.3,75,556/- iv. Logo Printing of Rs.25,15,000/- 39. As far as supplemental rent/maintenance reserve is concerned, it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the lease agreement has recorded a factual finding that the supplemental rent was paid for acquisition of aircraft. He has observed that

DCIT, Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Spicejet Limited, Gurgaon

ITA 2182/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43A

Spicejet Ltd. 7 disallowed various other expenses under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing ... Rs.3,75,556/- iv. Logo Printing of Rs.25,15,000/- 39. As far as supplemental rent/maintenance reserve is concerned, it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the lease agreement has recorded a factual finding that the supplemental rent was paid for acquisition of aircraft. He has observed that

Spicejet Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

ITA 1803/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43A

Spicejet Ltd. 7 disallowed various other expenses under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing ... Rs.3,75,556/- iv. Logo Printing of Rs.25,15,000/- 39. As far as supplemental rent/maintenance reserve is concerned, it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the lease agreement has recorded a factual finding that the supplemental rent was paid for acquisition of aircraft. He has observed that

Spicejet Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

ITA 1802/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43A

Spicejet Ltd. 7 disallowed various other expenses under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing ... Rs.3,75,556/- iv. Logo Printing of Rs.25,15,000/- 39. As far as supplemental rent/maintenance reserve is concerned, it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the lease agreement has recorded a factual finding that the supplemental rent was paid for acquisition of aircraft. He has observed that

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

madedisallowanceofassessee'sclaimundersection14A, read with rule 8D(2)(ii) on ground that overdraft facility was directly used by assessee for making tax exempt investments but Commissioner (Appeals) reversed his finding holding that amounts in reserves and surpluses of assessee were far more in excess than amount received by assessee as advances

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

sole ground sole ground raised by the assessee raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: Ground No 1: Ground No 1: The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law & on The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law & on The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law & on facts ... March 2019 passed by the learned order dated 1st March 2019 passed by the learned order dated 1st March 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under section

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

sole ground sole ground raised by the assessee raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: Ground No 1: Ground No 1: The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law & on The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law & on The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law & on facts ... March 2019 passed by the learned order dated 1st March 2019 passed by the learned order dated 1st March 2019 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under section

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Pinnacle Clothing Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Business expenditure – Allowability of [Burden of proof] - Assessment year 2001-02 – Assessing Officer disallowed income of assessee alleging non-genuine purchases from different parties - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld order of Assessing Officer - Assessee filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through account payee cheques ... Further, books of account of assessee had not been rejected - Tribunal deleted disallowance - Whether merely because suppliers had not appeared before Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), it could not be concluded that purchases were not made by assessee - Held, yes [Para 7)" Further, in the case of M/s Fancy Wear

DCIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Pinnacle Clothing Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5833/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Business expenditure – Allowability of [Burden of proof] - Assessment year 2001-02 – Assessing Officer disallowed income of assessee alleging non-genuine purchases from different parties - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld order of Assessing Officer - Assessee filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through account payee cheques ... Further, books of account of assessee had not been rejected - Tribunal deleted disallowance - Whether merely because suppliers had not appeared before Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), it could not be concluded that purchases were not made by assessee - Held, yes [Para 7)" Further, in the case of M/s Fancy Wear

Prashant Manohar Bhagwat, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 86/RPR/2023[2014-5]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 86/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prashant Manohar Bhagwat H. No.11, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ahfpb6105K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Asus India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Ld. Addl/Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ ITO, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

aforesaid provisions, the Assessing Officer disallowed 30% out of the expenditure. As discussed earlier, the disallowance made was also upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. 8. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the assessee imports electronic goods such as note books, tablets, pad-phones ... 2427/Mum/2022; Asus India Private Ltd; 2018-19 9. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the contract between the parties are not conclusive, therefore, the true nature and character of the transaction has to be examined to find

Diagold Designs Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 445/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Diagold Designs Limited, Cc2070, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-12(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aabcd3716 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Hitesh TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 147Section 148Section 250

from the three parties totalling to amount of Rs. 3, 15, 72,840/- in respect of which it has been found by both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal that the sales in question have not been doubted, that the payments have been made by the assessee through ... Assessing Officer to rebut the evidence produced by the assessee. There is nothing on record controverting the findings of fact of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. Despite uncontroverted findings of fact and keeping in mind that the Assessing Officer had issued 133(6) notices to the three