← 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)

Dy CIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Siemens Technology & Services P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai

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

ITA 287/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2004-05
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

respect of Unit II and Unit III. The Assessing Officer did not allow deduction under Section 104 In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) called for the remand report. The Assessing Officer submitted the remand report. The remand report favoured the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed ... ground that Unit II and Unit III are expansion units of the assessee. This fact has been considered by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) However, the Tribunal without considering the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the said finding. The learned counsel relied on the judgment

Dy CIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Siemens Technology & Services P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai

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

ITA 286/MUM/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2003-04
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

respect of Unit II and Unit III. The Assessing Officer did not allow deduction under Section 104 In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) called for the remand report. The Assessing Officer submitted the remand report. The remand report favoured the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed ... ground that Unit II and Unit III are expansion units of the assessee. This fact has been considered by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) However, the Tribunal without considering the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the said finding. The learned counsel relied on the judgment

M/S. Bhairav Tube (India ), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 646/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S, Bhairav Tube (India) Ito Wd19(1)(2) Shop No. 10,Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 6Th Khotwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai-400 004 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aawft1198E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ujjwal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjwal Chavan SR AR
Section 114Section 143Section 147Section 148

Under: - “4. As regards first question, the Tribunal has upheld the finding and conclusion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 12.5% boguspurchases and to add 12.5% of the amount of purchases as income of the Appellant. The argument advanced

Asst CIT Cir. 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Dpn Reality Deals Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1347/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Vp आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1347/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Acit, Circle-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Dpn Reality Deals Room No. 483A, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Unit No. 4, Building No. 400020. 2, Sector-1, Millenium Business Park Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy6576C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Saurabh Bhat Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.11.2019 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal & Deleting The Additions Of Rs.19,46,21,075/- Made U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (DR)
Section 56(2)(viib)

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5927/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5883/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)

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

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3143/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

that the rateable value determined under Municipal law is not binding on the Assessing Officer. The appellate submits that this finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. 3. Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the rateable value certificate produced

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3142/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

that the rateable value determined under Municipal law is not binding on the Assessing Officer. The appellate submits that this finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. 3. Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the rateable value certificate produced

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3141/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

that the rateable value determined under Municipal law is not binding on the Assessing Officer. The appellate submits that this finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. 3. Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the rateable value certificate produced

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

request of the Assessing Officer).[(Para 13] In the instant case, the entire additional evidence had come on the record of the Commissioner (Appeals) because he had decided to examine the facts of the case in depth and then adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of evidence and material ... thus, gathered. The Commissioner (Appeals) was empowered to do so under the provisions of section 250(4). The result of enquiry conducted by him could either go to further cement the case made out by the Assessing Officer or to help out the assessee against the findings of the Assessing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

request of the Assessing Officer).[(Para 13] In the instant case, the entire additional evidence had come on the record of the Commissioner (Appeals) because he had decided to examine the facts of the case in depth and then adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of evidence and material ... thus, gathered. The Commissioner (Appeals) was empowered to do so under the provisions of section 250(4). The result of enquiry conducted by him could either go to further cement the case made out by the Assessing Officer or to help out the assessee against the findings of the Assessing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

request of the Assessing Officer).[(Para 13] In the instant case, the entire additional evidence had come on the record of the Commissioner (Appeals) because he had decided to examine the facts of the case in depth and then adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of evidence and material ... thus, gathered. The Commissioner (Appeals) was empowered to do so under the provisions of section 250(4). The result of enquiry conducted by him could either go to further cement the case made out by the Assessing Officer or to help out the assessee against the findings of the Assessing

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1691/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

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

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1690/CHNY/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

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

Basf Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3122/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

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

Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1187/CHNY/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1187 & 3122/Chny/2016 & 1690 & 1691/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Basf Catalysts India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8/1, Veerapuram Village, Vs. Income Tax, Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, (International Taxation) 1(1), Kancheepuram District 603 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace2545B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai In Ita No. 73/A-16/2014-15 Dated 29.01.2016 For The Period 31.12.2014 To 31.03.2015; Ita No. 18/Cit(A)-16/Fy 2014-15 Dated 22.08.2016 For The Period 20.02.2015 To 31.03.2015;

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 246ASection 248

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

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 3900/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

case of M/s. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723) observations on this issue as under;- When an appeal is pending before Commissioner (Appeals), exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by Commissioner would be barred. 12. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Smt. Renuka Phillip

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 3899/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

case of M/s. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723) observations on this issue as under;- When an appeal is pending before Commissioner (Appeals), exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by Commissioner would be barred. 12. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Smt. Renuka Phillip

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 3898/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

case of M/s. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723) observations on this issue as under;- When an appeal is pending before Commissioner (Appeals), exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by Commissioner would be barred. 12. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Smt. Renuka Phillip

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are stand dismissed

ITA 1448/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Kalpataru Limited Income Tax, Central Mumbai - 400055 Circle-5(3) Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaack2108K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Date Of Hearing 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act. Since Similar Facts & Identical Issue Are Involved, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience Both Appeals Are Adjudicated Together. We Shall Take Ita No. 1448/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied As Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 131Section 143(3)

untenable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention and made various additions to the income of the assessee on the basis of statement. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the statement made by a third party in the course of a search could not be attributed to or lead to adverse consequences ... corroborative material to connect those statements to the assessee's assessments and deleted the addition. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeals. Held, dismissing the appeals, that the statement under section 132(4) could not bind the assessee, According to section 132(4) a presumption arose