“ Commissioner (Appeals) ”

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

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.

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

659

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court

441

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate

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.

53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court

359

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

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.

44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court

278

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

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.

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

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.

30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT

201

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.

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.

56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court

196

ITA 2581/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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)

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

ITA 2580/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

under: “275(1)[(a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals ) undersection 246 [or section C.O. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Kesarinanadan Township. 246A] or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section ... imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later : [Provided that

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

ITA 1483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

ITA 1482/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

ITA 1570/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Tata Petrodyne Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 80I

assessee never raised the issue of claim of deduction under section 80IB(9) of the Act in the appeal filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the M/s. Tata Petrodyna Ltd., Departmental Authorities never had the occasion to examine assessee's claim of deduction vis-a-vis the ratio laid ... Gujarat High Court in Niko Resources Ltd, which in any case of the matter was delivered after disposal of appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Moreover, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has been challenged by the Department, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while admitting

Tata Petrodyne Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1569/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Tata Petrodyne Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1568/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

fact, the payment was made for outright sale of 'computer software' which is used as technique in mining operations. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the acquisition of software cannot be treated to be an asset of endurable nature. If the programme is used in one mining

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

M/S Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cicle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1513/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

such points or matters, or to furnish statements of accounts and affairs verified in the manner specified by the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), giving information in relation to such points or matters as, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer ... Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), will be useful for, or relevant to, any enquiry or proceeding under this Act :" 32. In this regard, we find that the Mumbai ITAT in case of M/s Kiara Jewellery P.Ltd. (I.T.A.No.8109/Mum/2011), has directed the AO/ TPO to obtain

M/S. Bhoomi Construction Projects, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Ward-28(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1828/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. AR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

alleging that interest free loans and advances were given to 8 parties. However, in course of appellate proceedings, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the interest disallowance made in respect of alleged interest free loans and advances to all the parties, except, Ellora Realities Pvt. Ltd. and Sarjak, considering the fact

Rare Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantsr

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliayaFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran P. Unavekar

Section 132

violation of the section 251(2) of the Act. The relevant part of the provision is reproduced as under: 251(2). The [Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhanced an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1882/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora/ Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

simultaneously levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The revenue's appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. On appeal

Radhika Dipen Mehta, Mumbai vs. The ITO 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1881/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora/ Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

aforesaid reasoning of the Assessing Officer, which has been reversed by the appellate authorities in proceedings arising out of original assessment order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has made an attempt to sustain the disallowance by completely deviating from the reasoning of the Assessing Officer and in the process has provided ... reasoning. Referring to the concession agreement as well as the EPC and O & M contracts learned Commissioner (Appeals) has tried to make out a case that the assessee is a mere paper company and after getting the work from NHAI has awarded the work to GIL on back-to-back

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

cost of acquisition. The said amount was as income from other sources. The 11 Appeals Shri Hitesh Chhatwal Vs. DCIT, CC-5(4) 20 Commissioner (Appeals) noted that as per the agreement, the entire business related to the product Indus Guard which had been sold by the sellers, including ... stipulated that the assessee would be prevented from engaging into similar business for a certain period. The Tribunal held in para 19 that the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in holding that ‘a perusal of the Asset Purchase Agreement clearly showed that the dominant intention of the purchaser for making payment

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 312/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

ITA 311/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

addition can be made, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order, the same does not give rise to any question of law, much less

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

ITA 310/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &

ITA 309/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

K.G. Krishna, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (Written submissions) &