← 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)

Satya Prakash Goyal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2820/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69A

unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. The addition made was confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 4 ITA No.2820/Del./2022 7. It is evident, in course of search

Crest Ultrasonics India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ADIT Ward-6(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2038/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(ii)

paid as commission to director and Rs.2,40,525 being bonus to employees. 4. The assessee contested the aforesaid additions before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he declined to interfere. 5. Before me, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted, that in the tax audit report, due to an inadvertent ... ./2022 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that in view of the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, the issue can be reexamined by learned Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8. It is observed, in the original tax audit report

Navratan Daga, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 910/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-219

Section 132Section 69ASection 69C

added back to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the addition by filing an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, the addition was sustained. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 4 ITA No.910/Del./2021 8. Undisputedly, in course of search ... assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash found, however, the assessee did not comply. Even, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sustained the addition by stating that the assessee has given a very sketchy and vague response. The assessee has not brought any contrary

DCIT, in. Tax. Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi vs. Hotchand Teckchand Punjabi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1680/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Hotchand Techchand International Taxation, Punjabi, Circle -2(2)(2), C/O- Nidhi Goyal, Ca, A-3 New Delhi Mod Apartment 61, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi Pan :Aqupp2417I (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 295(2)Section 69B

amount of Rs.16,86,47,782/- as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before earned Commissioner (Appeals). 3 | P a g e AY: 2012-13 5. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee submitted that due to prevailing restrictions on account ... fixed deposit amount as on 31.03.12 was Rs.9,50,00,000/- only and not Rs.19,72,95,564/-. Based on the submissions made, learned Commissioner (Appeals) called upon the assessee to seek further clarification from the bank in this regard, which was obtained by the assessee and furnished before learned

Moogsoft Inc, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Int. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 9823/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 154

brought to tax the amount received from sale of software. Contesting the addition made in the rectification order the assessee preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is evident, in course ... observed, in the year under consideration, the assessee had sold certain software to two Indian entities for their internal use. As observed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), software sold by the assessee is for introducing a definite set of processes which are real time substitute of the existing process carried

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Bently Nevada Llc, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5063/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bently Nevada Llc Circle -1(1)(2), (Earlier Known As Bentley International Taxation, Nevada Inc.), 6Th Floor, New Delhi Building 7A, Standard Chartered Building, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon Pan :Aadcb8118J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.52,43,531/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Challenging the penalty imposed, the assessee filed an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Penalty imposed was deleted by learned Commissioner (Appeals) basically on the ground that the issue, whether the assessee had a PE in India ... case of a group entity by relying upon a decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. The relevant observation of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard are under: “5.33 However, the Appellant has brought my attention to the recent decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of GE Energy

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8914/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

interalia held thus: “9. Section 271(1)(c) and Explanation 1 thereto read as under: "271.(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-... (c) has concealed the particulars ... person under this Act,- such person falls to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false, or such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that

Mesers Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

were traced to transaction of paddy weighing 2509.65 qtls. shown as sale to ‘G’ by assessee - It was finding of both Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) that source of these deposits was traceable to above paddy which was not actually sold to ‘G’ but was actually milled by assessee ... amount of sale to income of rice as made to M/s Vasudev Sales assessee as unexplained investments under Corp. section 69 - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) • The entire payment of the sales as deleted said addition holding that only commission on sales made to J could be added to assessee

Shri Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani & Smt. Bhavnaben Shitalbhai Ravani, Rajkot vs. The Chief CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

ITA 23/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(a)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220

assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section

Smt. Bhavnaben Shitalbhai Ravani, Rajkot vs. The ITO(TDS-2), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

ITA 22/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(a)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220

assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section

Mohit Mittal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5353/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Mohit Mittal, Vs. Ito, 30, Tarun Enclave, Ward-16(1), Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aiwpm9299F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68Section 69C

back an amount of Rs.1,12,687/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The assessee contested the aforesaid additions before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, the additions were confirmed. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. Facts and materials

Mr. Surinder Malhotra (Prop. M/S. Craft India), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3306/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 234ASection 68

reasoning that the assessee could not reconcile the account of some other creditors. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid additions before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, adopting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer, learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the additions. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that under a factual ... outstanding sundry creditor was offered as income in assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer has made the addition, which was confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). He submitted, the assessee had surrendered only a part of the sundry creditors in assessment year 2008-09, since with other creditors the assessee

Mr. Surinder Malhotra (Prop. M/S. Craft India), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3305/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 234ASection 68

reasoning that the assessee could not reconcile the account of some other creditors. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid additions before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, adopting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer, learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the additions. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that under a factual ... outstanding sundry creditor was offered as income in assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer has made the addition, which was confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). He submitted, the assessee had surrendered only a part of the sundry creditors in assessment year 2008-09, since with other creditors the assessee

Shree Sanaliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Lital Motaliliya Sanaliya, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

ITA 204/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR &
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

assessees have raised identical grounds in all the appeals and hence grounds raised in ITA No.186/RJT/2022 are being reproduced hereunder: “1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by holding that claim made by the Appellant was “Incorrect claim ... Sec.143(1) of the Act. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by disallowing claim of deduction of Rs.18,20,276./- by failing to appreciate that provisions of Sec.143(1)(a)(v) do not provide for denial of deduction

Amrutpur Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Village: - Amrutpur Taluka Dhari, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

ITA 203/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR &
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

assessees have raised identical grounds in all the appeals and hence grounds raised in ITA No.186/RJT/2022 are being reproduced hereunder: “1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by holding that claim made by the Appellant was “Incorrect claim ... Sec.143(1) of the Act. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by disallowing claim of deduction of Rs.18,20,276./- by failing to appreciate that provisions of Sec.143(1)(a)(v) do not provide for denial of deduction

Dhareshwar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Village: - Dhareshwar, Taluka: - Rajula, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

ITA 197/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR &
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

assessees have raised identical grounds in all the appeals and hence grounds raised in ITA No.186/RJT/2022 are being reproduced hereunder: “1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by holding that claim made by the Appellant was “Incorrect claim ... Sec.143(1) of the Act. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by disallowing claim of deduction of Rs.18,20,276./- by failing to appreciate that provisions of Sec.143(1)(a)(v) do not provide for denial of deduction

Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Ambaradi, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bangaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

ITA 186/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR &
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

assessees have raised identical grounds in all the appeals and hence grounds raised in ITA No.186/RJT/2022 are being reproduced hereunder: “1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by holding that claim made by the Appellant was “Incorrect claim ... Sec.143(1) of the Act. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru by disallowing claim of deduction of Rs.18,20,276./- by failing to appreciate that provisions of Sec.143(1)(a)(v) do not provide for denial of deduction

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Rs.1,47,575/- received by the assessee during the previous year was also brought to tax in the year of receipt. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the amount of enhanced compensation and interest thereon from the total income of the assessee. The Tribunal ... upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The High Court also dismissed the revenue's appeal. However, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgement in the last para held that the civil appeals filed by the Department stand allowed with no order as to costs. It shows that

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Rs.1,47,575/- received by the assessee during the previous year was also brought to tax in the year of receipt. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the amount of enhanced compensation and interest thereon from the total income of the assessee. The Tribunal ... upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The High Court also dismissed the revenue's appeal. However, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgement in the last para held that the civil appeals filed by the Department stand allowed with no order as to costs. It shows that

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Rs.1,47,575/- received by the assessee during the previous year was also brought to tax in the year of receipt. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention and deleted the amount of enhanced compensation and interest thereon from the total income of the assessee. The Tribunal ... upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The High Court also dismissed the revenue's appeal. However, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgement in the last para held that the civil appeals filed by the Department stand allowed with no order as to costs. It shows that