“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)

Gold Star Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

merely a consideration that disables, but the matter is to be considered and decided in the appeal. The submission of the revenue, that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue while dealing with the question of enhancement, could not be accepted. The power of the Commissioner (Appeals) is structured ... provisions of section 251. Section 251, inter alia, provides that in disposing of an appeal against an order of assessment the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Consequently, when a request for enhancement was made to the Commissioner (Appeals

ITO 30 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blossom Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the both appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 62/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito 30(1)(1) Vs. M/S Blossom Room No. 436, 4Th Floor Developers Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Survey No. 273, Village G Block, Bandra(East) Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Mumbai – 400051. Malad (E), Mumbai – 400097. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Blossom Vs. Ito 30(1)(1) Developers Room No. 436, 4Th Survey No. 273, Village Floor Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Malad (E), G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400097. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shyam C. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, SR. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

salary expenditure at Rs. 8 lakh each to the concerned individuals. Of course, the learned ITA No. 62 & 1152/Mum/2022 M/s Blossom Developers, Mumbai. Commissioner (Appeals) has enhanced the payment of salary to the concerned individuals, again on the basis of estimation, to Rs. 30 lakh each. 9. At the same ... time, as could be seen from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in assessment year 2010-11, the assessee had paid salary of Rs. 12 lakh each to the concerned individuals and in assessment year 2011-12, the payment of salary to these persons were increased

M/S Ge T&D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

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

ITA 725/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 725/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010 - 11 Ge T&D India Ltd., The Dcit, 19/1, Ioc Building, Gst Road, Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Pallavaram, Chennai Chennai – 600 043. Pan: Aaacg 2115R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadhri, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandian, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148

change of opinion and liable to be set aside. Moreover, in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10, the Commissioner (Appeals) by taking note of the objections filed by the CBDT to the audit report has held in favour of the assessee and the appeal

Suresh Maneklal Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3580/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Das

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)

Having held so, now we propose to deal with the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). As could be seen from the facts on record, in course of assessment proceedings the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of purchases ... assessee purchased the goods. In the aforesaid factual position, the addition of the entire purchase is not justified. Therefore, to that extent, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in estimating the profit on the non–genuine purchases for the purpose of addition. 10. Now reverting back to the reasonableness of estimating

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

vide order dated February 26, 2014 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) 2, Mumbai. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) 2, Mumbai vide order dated 18/03/2015 has held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation under section ... assessment year 2013-2014, has disallowed the claim of depreciation only on the basis that the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Mumbai in the assessee’s own case for the years 2008-2009, 2009- 2010, 2011-12 is not acceptable and has filed an appeal

Magan Vadhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 19(2) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1215/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magan Vadhaji Prajapati बिधम/ Ito Ward-19(2)(3) Room No.15, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Building, Vs. 39/41, Kamal Niwas 1St & 2Nd Floor, Nana Bhandari Street, Mumbai- Chowk, Bhatia Hospital 400004. Lane, Javji Dadaji Marg, Grant Road West, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anwpp7146B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue By: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.03.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under: - 2. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Facts Whereas Some Suppliers Is Not Belonging To Assessee & Confirm The Addition Made By Ao. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Rs.17,38,432/- Which Was 12.5% Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.”

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. AR)

Section 133Section 133(6)

declared the gross profit at 3.56 per cent of the total turnover. If the yardstick of 30 per cent, as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), is accepted the gross profit rate will be much higher. In essence, the Tribunal only estimated the possible profit out of purchases made through ... 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

Sri. Pavan Kandkur, Hubballi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

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

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

amount of tax payable by the appellant if such application for revision was not to be accepted: Provided that in a case where Commissioner (Appeals) has issued notice of enhancement under section 251 of the Income-tax Act on or before the specified date, the disputed tax shall be increased

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 721/CHNY/2020[2019-20 (April, 2018-September, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 195(2)

services provided and other relevant factors including the relevant provisions under the India Germany DTAA. While deciding the appeals of the assessee, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons:- i) Invoice dated 17.12.2012, raised by BASF SE on the assessee ... unless the assessee avails services in the nature of fees for technical services. 9. As regards the allegation of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the invoice raised by the BASF SE dated 17th December 2012, does not refer to the cost sharing agreement, we find such allegation to be factually

M/S. Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, International Taxation-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 720/CHNY/2020[2018-19 (October, 2017 to March, 2018)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 720 & 721/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate for Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 195(2)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

July 2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Commissioner (Appeals)) on the following among other grounds: Appeal has no connection with the declaration submitted under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred ... fact that the appeal has no connection with the application/ declaration filed by the appellant for opting the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated

Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 985/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, ARFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

interest of the appellant is bad, erroneous in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in 2 ITA No.985/Bang/2022. M/s.Technocon Constructions & Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. facts, by disallowing ... considering and passing an intimation/ order contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court. 7. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 14A

other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. We must, therefore, uphold the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals), which are in consonance with the Special Bench decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) and coordinate bench decision in the case

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 3307/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

Ambuja Cements Ltd ( Formerly Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT, Chennai vs. B.V.Reddy Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

conditions were not there in section 80HHC at the time when the assessee filed the returns or even the original assessments were made. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the invocation of the proviso to section 147 to be invalid and set aside the reassessments under section 147/148

Spencer Stuart International B.V. Tax, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 514/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

agents paid their proportionate share of the expenses incurred on these said systems and for maintaining those systems. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had stated that there was any profit element embedded in the payments received by the assessee from its agents in India. Once the character

Spencer Stuart International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6673/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

support the order in appeal on any of the grounds decided against it. The Respondent- assessee had taken the ground of maintainability before Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, in the appeal filed by the Revenue, it could rely upon Rule 27 and advance his arguments, even though it had not filed

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6669/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

M/S Global Infoserve Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate War-2(2), Chennnai

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

ITA 936/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.936/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Global Infoserve Ltd., V. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2B, Corporate Ward-2(2), Sai Subhodaya, Chennai. Thiruvanmayur, Chennai.

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-6, is wrong, illegal and is opposed to law. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appellants appeal as time barred by observing that the appellant had suppressed the information that there was delay of 3 days