← 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)

Chandi Ram Sahajwani Through Dinesh Kumar Legal Heir, Panipat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 849/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54F

transfer deed and also issued the receipt in the name of Assessee for payments made directly to the Builder. 4. That the Honorable Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted in the order itself that the Assessee had filed the bank statement to establish, that the payments were made from the account

Hero Fincorp Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Delhi, C.R. Building

ITA 2542/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2542/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18 Hero Fincop Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) C. R. Building, New Delhi-110002 अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Pan:Aaach0157J Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Himanshu Aggarwal Adv. Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement On 16.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am, The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of ‘Hire Purchase Leasing & Finance'. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/(First Appellate Authority Hereinafter Referred As “Faa”), Delhi Dated 27.03.2024 Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2019For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Of Provision For Collection Charges -Rs. 9,75,00,000/-

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI SATBEER

Klin Industries, Sandha Khamidana, Junagadh vs. The ACIT, Circle, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80J

award of penalty can never be sustained. 5. 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

Samudra Commotrade (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O, NFAC, New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1057/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order

Gulf Piping Company Wll, Abu Dhabi vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 83/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

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

Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. Kamal Jewellers, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 161/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessment Order, etc. for the Financial Year 2016-17. The aid evidences were called for under the powers of enquiry with the office of Commissioner (Appeal). As per appellant, the complete stock statement and sale bills were also provided to the AO vide replies dated 20.12.2016, 21.12.2016 & 26.12.2016. In case ... held as under: “Whether a distinction should be recognized and maintained between a case where assessee invokes rule 46A to adduce additional evidence before Commissioner (Appeals) and a case where Commissioner (Appeals), without being prompted by assessee, while dealing with appeal, considers it fit to cause or make a further

Gulf Piping Company Wll, United Arab Emirates vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 81/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

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

Gulf Piping Company Wll, United Arab Emirates vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 71/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

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

Mamta Dholpure, Indore vs. ITO 3(3), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 712/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271

Page 5 of 7 Mamta Dholpure ITA No. 712/Ind/2025 - AY 2016-17 250(6) of the Act which 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

Shri Avinash Bansal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3), Indore

ITA 682/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Suresh Kumar Banthia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SM Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why Page

Yograjsinh G. Jadeja, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (1) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 754/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 754/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Yograjsinh G. Jadeja, The Ito, At Chapabeda, Ward – 1(1)(1), Vs. Ta, Kotda Sangani, Rajkot Rajkot-360030 Gujarat "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfqpj9355F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 4(2)Section 5Section 5(1)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, "Upon the filing of the declaration, any appeal pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of the disputed income or disputed interest or disputed penalty or disputed fee and tax arrear shall be deemed to have been

Saroj Goenka, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

house had commenced before the sale of the shares i.e., on 17th September, 2008. 14 ITA No.2129/Kol/2025 Saroj Goenka; A.Y. 2021-22 6. Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal have relied upon decisions of Allahabad High Court and Karnataka High Court in CIT v. H.K. Kapoor ... extent it got invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under section 54 of the Act." 8. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order while accepting the plea of the assessee has referred to several judgments of the Tribunal thereafter in which the aforesaid reasoning and interpretation

Anirudh Bhimjibhai Dudhat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 42(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 7346/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makrand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

balance sheets, capital accounts, and bank statements of the respective creditors. 3 Anirudh Bhimjibhai Dudhat, Mumbai. These additional evidences were admitted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for examination and verification by calling for a remand report. 5. During the remand proceedings, the Assessing ... examination or recording any adverse finding with respect to the evidences placed on record. 6. What further compounds the infirmity is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), while passing the impugned appellate order, failed to record any independent finding on the additional evidences so admitted. The appellate order neither analyses

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Kriti Nutrients Limited, Indore

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 246ASection 250Section 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M

Prime Omkar K K Consortium, Mumbai City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6541/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethprime Omkar K K Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3)(1) Consortium Income Tax Office, Kautilya Bhavan, Building No. 1, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Sukhadwala, 36 Dhanji Mumbai -400051. Street, Mumbai-400003. Pan/Gir No: Aabap7015N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. Ground no. 1:- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 1,18,19,733/- made in the assessment order as peak credit value ... erroneous and deserves to be deleted in appeal. 2. Ground no. 2:- Without prejudice to the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest of Rs. 5,11,216/- in respect of the aforesaid loan from Arihant Exports. The disallowance of interest is erroneous and deserves

ACIT (It)- Circle, New Delhi vs. Air France, Delhi

ITA 5311/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

treaty. It is observed, assessee's claim has been accepted by learned DRP in assessment year 2012-13 and by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in assessment year 2013- 14. However, on examining the nature of receipts, we are of the view that it has no connection with assessee's business ... basis. Against the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer in the assessment years under dispute, the assessee either approached the learned DRP or learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, authority concerned agreed with the view of the Assessing Officer in all these assessment years. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing

ACIT, Delhi vs. Air France, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5310/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

treaty. It is observed, assessee's claim has been accepted by learned DRP in assessment year 2012-13 and by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in assessment year 2013- 14. However, on examining the nature of receipts, we are of the view that it has no connection with assessee's business ... estimate basis. Against the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer in the assessment years under dispute, the assessee either approached learned DRP or learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, the authority concerned agreed with the view of the Assessing Officer in all these assessment years. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing

Air France, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1 (1) (10, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5206/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

treaty. It is observed, assessee's claim has been accepted by learned DRP in assessment year 2012-13 and by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in assessment year 2013- 14. However, on examining the nature of receipts, we are of the view that it has no connection with assessee's business ... estimate basis. Against the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer in the assessment years under dispute, the assessee either approached learned DRP or learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, the authority concerned agreed with the view of the Assessing Officer in all these assessment years. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing

Air France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5205/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

treaty. It is observed, assessee's claim has been accepted by learned DRP in assessment year 2012-13 and by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in assessment year 2013- 14. However, on examining the nature of receipts, we are of the view that it has no connection with assessee's business ... estimate basis. Against the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer in the assessment years under dispute, the assessee either approached learned DRP or learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, the authority concerned agreed with the view of the Assessing Officer in all these assessment years. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing