“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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

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

ITA 4835/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Deputy

Mohit Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT -CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 6330/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT–DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 250

2734/Mum/2019 is dismissed. ITA no.6330/Mum./2019 Assessment Year – 2011–12 16. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the AO in disallowing depreciation of Rs.55,09,476/- on industrial galas used by the assessee company for its business ... paid by it for taking on lease @ 10%. M/s. Mohit Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.2734/Mum./2019 ITA No.6330/Mum./2019 3. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is had in law and without jurisdiction as it is contrary to his own orders in the case of the assessee company for A.Ys

M/S Mohit Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., CC 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2734/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT–DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 250

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97

Section 143(3)

other view M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd., of the matter than the view so taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, 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) are upheld.‖ Para 5(vii) & The Assessee

DCIT 4 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Skf India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7278/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R. P. PopatFor Respondent: Mrs. Neha Thakur (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

reproduced here-in-below: “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. Section 271: (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person 3 A.Y.2009-10 (c) has concealed the particulars ... under this Act (A) Such person fails 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 (B) Such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and to prove that

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Teleservices (Mah) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 3874/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S Tata Teleservices Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Mah.) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, D-26, Ttc Industrial Mk Road, Mumbai Estate, Midc 400020. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 4000703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1458C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vinay Sinha.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Date Of Hearing 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Vinay Sinha.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Hiten Chande.AR

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 32Section 40

view of the changed scenario, after the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as referred to above, the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. In fact, ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in case of M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.309/Jp./2012 and others, dated 13th ... starter kit and accordingly, following the decisions referred to Tata Teleservices (Mah.) Ltd., Mumbai. above, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and quash the demand raised by the Assessing Officer under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The issue has also been decided

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

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

also been repaid through account payee (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2013-14) M/s. Rupa Properties and Securities Pvt. Ltd., cheques — In view of above, Commissioner (Appeals), taking a view that loan transactions were genuine, deleted addition made by Assessing Officer — Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) — Whether on facts, impugned addition

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

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

Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1271/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 23Section 24Section 24(3)

charges on the ground that the said expenses were not allowable u/s 24 out of the rent received by the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO view. On second appeal: Held-II It was an admitted fact that the gross rent receipt also included the society charges

Pragati Trading Co., Mumbai vs. ITO - 27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is disposed of by treating the same as withdrawn

ITA 2063/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pragati Trading Co. Vs. Ito 27(2)(5) B/154, Kanara Business Centre, Mumbai 400073 Off Ghatkopar Link Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400075 Appellant. Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri SubramanianFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 2Section 3Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 9

such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing

Cresent Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1272/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

Dy CIT(International Taxation)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1046/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Perusal of above referred assessment order reveals that similar interest was taxed as per the rate prescribed under DTAA i.e. @ 10%. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the material placed before her directed the Assessing Officer to treat the interest on loan in foreign currency as chargeable ... interest income @ 42.024%. No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice to take different view. Therefore, we affirm the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 9. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 8. Facts in the present case are identical and it is not the case

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250

directly on the point at issue. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd., on which the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on, is distinguishable as the decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., has directly dealt with the pre commencement expense ... order of the Assessing Officer bringing the receipt as income from other sources is perfectly justified and the deletion of the same by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not in accordance with law. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore that of the Assessing Officer

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

Trib.) – wherein – Assessee co-operative society received fixed deposits in cash in contravention of section 269SS - Assessing officer, levied penalty which was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether loan or deposit involved in cash was in excess of amount specified in section 269SS - Held, yes - Whether burden was on assessee

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2800/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 40

service tax on the ground that it did not, in fact, broadcast. The Commissioner, however, held against the appellant. The appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals). While the appeal was pending, the Finance Act, 2001, was amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The effect of the amendment, inter alia

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2799/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 40

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

they were basically for the purpose of advertising assessee's products in print media or through seminar, conferences, etc. As rightly observed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer has brought no material on M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., record to establish that the expenditure is for brand building ... nature of capital expenditure and amortized over a period of five years. To that extent, we agree with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. However, as regards experience certainty expenditure amounting to ₹ 5.28 crore, it appears that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held it to be of capital

M/S Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 234Section 68

under section 68--AO made an addition of Rs. 1,70,00,000 on account of share application money received by the Assessee- company. Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal had deleted the addition on the ground that Assessee had produced substantial evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholder ... were returned UN served with remarks that address was not complete or other similar reason. AO not satisfied with Assessee's explanation made addition. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted Assessee's appeal on basis of additional evidence and also keeping in view the fact that for subsequent assessment year shareholders investment

M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2327/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2327/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Plot No.365, Sompura 1St Stage Kiadb Industrial Area Dobbaspet, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural Dist – 562 111. Pan : Aadct0271C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

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 Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

additional evidence is governed by prescribed rules and are contained in Rule 46A which reads as under: [Production of additional evidence before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] FAND Commissioner (Appeals)}. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)], for, as the case ... Commissioner (Appeals)), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produce by him during the course of proceedings before the (Assessing Officer], except the following circumstances, namely: (a)where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or where the appellant