← 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)

Diya Fabrics, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

Section 40A(3)Section 68

with regard to the notice of enhancement ever served upon the assessee. Provisions of section 251(2) of the Act categorically says that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing

M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bharuch

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

ITA 751/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

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

Assessee, carrying on construction business, declared net profit of 5 per cent on gross receipts -Assessing Officer applied rate of 7 per cent - Commissioner (Appeals) applied 10 per cent rate relying on a case purported to be comparable and by generalizing that normal rate of profit in construction business ... applied in assessee's own case - Whether history of assessee's case itself was a guide in applying rate of profit and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in enhancing rate - Held, yes” 21. We note that comparable cases and instances discussed by ld CIT(A) in his order state

M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

ITA 750/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

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

Assessee, carrying on construction business, declared net profit of 5 per cent on gross receipts -Assessing Officer applied rate of 7 per cent - Commissioner (Appeals) applied 10 per cent rate relying on a case purported to be comparable and by generalizing that normal rate of profit in construction business ... applied in assessee's own case - Whether history of assessee's case itself was a guide in applying rate of profit and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in enhancing rate - Held, yes” 21. We note that comparable cases and instances discussed by ld CIT(A) in his order state

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle-1, Bharuch vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

ITA 723/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

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

Assessee, carrying on construction business, declared net profit of 5 per cent on gross receipts -Assessing Officer applied rate of 7 per cent - Commissioner (Appeals) applied 10 per cent rate relying on a case purported to be comparable and by generalizing that normal rate of profit in construction business ... applied in assessee's own case - Whether history of assessee's case itself was a guide in applying rate of profit and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in enhancing rate - Held, yes” 21. We note that comparable cases and instances discussed by ld CIT(A) in his order state

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle-1, Bharuch vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

ITA 722/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

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

Assessee, carrying on construction business, declared net profit of 5 per cent on gross receipts -Assessing Officer applied rate of 7 per cent - Commissioner (Appeals) applied 10 per cent rate relying on a case purported to be comparable and by generalizing that normal rate of profit in construction business ... applied in assessee's own case - Whether history of assessee's case itself was a guide in applying rate of profit and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in enhancing rate - Held, yes” 21. We note that comparable cases and instances discussed by ld CIT(A) in his order state

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the A

ITA 7/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

books of account of the assessee had not been rejected and assessment having not been framed under section 144, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) were in error in resorting to an estimation of income and such exercise undertaken by them was not sustainable. Section 145(3) lays down ... business same would form the basis for computation of income. In the instant case, it is noticed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee in the course of the business. As such Tribunal has rightly rejected

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the A

ITA 6/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

books of account of the assessee had not been rejected and assessment having not been framed under section 144, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) were in error in resorting to an estimation of income and such exercise undertaken by them was not sustainable. Section 145(3) lays down ... business same would form the basis for computation of income. In the instant case, it is noticed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee in the course of the business. As such Tribunal has rightly rejected

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the A

ITA 5/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

books of account of the assessee had not been rejected and assessment having not been framed under section 144, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) were in error in resorting to an estimation of income and such exercise undertaken by them was not sustainable. Section 145(3) lays down ... business same would form the basis for computation of income. In the instant case, it is noticed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee in the course of the business. As such Tribunal has rightly rejected

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the A

ITA 4/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

books of account of the assessee had not been rejected and assessment having not been framed under section 144, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) were in error in resorting to an estimation of income and such exercise undertaken by them was not sustainable. Section 145(3) lays down ... business same would form the basis for computation of income. In the instant case, it is noticed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee in the course of the business. As such Tribunal has rightly rejected

Shri Girishbhai Nanjibhai Solanki, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2), Rajkot

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

ITA 30/RJT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254Section 69

From the above, it is transpired that the view that the Tribunal is confined only to those issues arising out of the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is too narrow a view to describe the powers of the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow

Parshwa Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., Wadhwan vs. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 311/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

condition is available then assessee would be permitted to adduce additional evidence. The next step suggested in the rule is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has to record reasons for permitting an assessee to adduce the additional evidence. After this exercise, it has been provided in sub-rule (3) that first ... witness which can help the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and for any other substantial cause. The Commissioner (Appeals) has remitted the submissions of the assessee along with the documents to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer has submitted

Parshwa Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., Wadhwan vs. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 310/RJT/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

condition is available then assessee would be permitted to adduce additional evidence. The next step suggested in the rule is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has to record reasons for permitting an assessee to adduce the additional evidence. After this exercise, it has been provided in sub-rule (3) that first ... witness which can help the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and for any other substantial cause. The Commissioner (Appeals) has remitted the submissions of the assessee along with the documents to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer has submitted

Parshwa Printpack Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 248/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

condition is available then assessee would be permitted to adduce additional evidence. The next step suggested in the rule is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has to record reasons for permitting an assessee to adduce the additional evidence. After this exercise, it has been provided in sub-rule (3) that first ... witness which can help the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and for any other substantial cause. The Commissioner (Appeals) has remitted the submissions of the assessee along with the documents to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer has submitted

Income Tax Officer- 1(1), Bhilai vs. M/S Avni Colonizers Pvt. Ltd, Bhilai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee are disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 59/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.59/Rpr/2020 Co No. 03/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Income Tax Rules 1962 is culled out, as under: "46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the '[Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course ... appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] nor, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals

Mahesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT - 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 4/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Goyal, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 134ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

above case was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. However the assessee has filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) in paper form as prescribed under the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 within the prescribed period of limitation. But the same was dismissed by learned ... Commissioner (Appeals) by holding that assessee had not filed appeal through electronic form, which is mandatory as per Income Tax Rules 1962. SHRI MAHESH AGARWAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR After having considered the entire factual position, we find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘State

Sh. Laxman Singh Chahar, .R. Compounder Ki Gali, Devipura, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sikar

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

ITA 434/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: It, Hon’Ble Itat Is Prayed To Decide The Appeal On Merit Instead Of Setting Aside The Matter To Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal , CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

present case. Even otherwise the dictum of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifically states that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Therefore, looking to the facts

Dayaram Yadav, Jaipur vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 253Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(b)

which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “On 16.03.2022, I received the order of Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, in my case for assessment year 2010-11. Being aggrieved by the said order I requested Messrs C.L. Yadav & Associates, Chartered Accountants ... reproduced as under: [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- (a) 5656[***] (b) has failed

ACIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed, whereas,

ITA 2015/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 92B

adjustment proposed by the TPO, the Assessing Officer made additions in the assessment orders. Though, the assessee preferred appeals challenging the adjustment, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld them. 3.2 Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that similar erroneous approach was adopted by the TPO in assessee ... gone forward to re-characterize the assessee as a software development service provider and selected fresh comparables in the software development segment. Unfortunately, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also completely misconceived the facts by approving the re-characterization of the assessee. It is observed, similar erroneous approach was adopted

ACIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed, whereas,

ITA 2013/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 92B

adjustment proposed by the TPO, the Assessing Officer made additions in the assessment orders. Though, the assessee preferred appeals challenging the adjustment, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld them. 3.2 Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that similar erroneous approach was adopted by the TPO in assessee ... gone forward to re-characterize the assessee as a software development service provider and selected fresh comparables in the software development segment. Unfortunately, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also completely misconceived the facts by approving the re-characterization of the assessee. It is observed, similar erroneous approach was adopted

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed, whereas,

ITA 1505/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 92B

adjustment proposed by the TPO, the Assessing Officer made additions in the assessment orders. Though, the assessee preferred appeals challenging the adjustment, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld them. 3.2 Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that similar erroneous approach was adopted by the TPO in assessee ... gone forward to re-characterize the assessee as a software development service provider and selected fresh comparables in the software development segment. Unfortunately, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also completely misconceived the facts by approving the re-characterization of the assessee. It is observed, similar erroneous approach was adopted