“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)

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

seen. Thus, the addition was rightly deleted." CIT vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd (2013) 34 Taxmann.com177 (Guj-HC) "It is noted that Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have duly considered issue and having found complete details of the receipts of share application money, alongwith the form names ... deceased." CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd (2013) 35 Taxrnann.com384 (Bom) "Whether merely because suppliers had not appeared before Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), it cou ld not be concluded that purchases were not made by assessee - Held, Yes.... Further, there were confirmation letters filed by the suppliers, copies

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trust Circle- 3(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Baldwin Boys High School, Bangalore

ITA 606/BANG/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 10(22)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 253Section 253(4)

error in law in holding that the assessee having not filed cross-objection against findings adverse to the assessee in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the said findings had become final and remained unchallenged. The Tribunal apparently lost sight of the fact that the assessee had succeeded before the Commissioner ... lays down that either the assessing officer or the assessee, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) has been preferred under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that no appeal had been filed against such an order

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R

Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

consistent with view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee‟s own case, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the assessee. Ground no.6, is dismissed.” 21. Following the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench ... given by the Tribunal in the aforesaid misc. application. Consistent with the view as aforesaid, we set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar direction. We order accordingly. Additional ground 38 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 3685/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R

Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

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

Section 143(3)Section 154

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 :" 34. 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 Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 154

Tech Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6573/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 6573/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) Tech Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacm-3484-F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit, Cir. 2(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Damor सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: 6573/Mum/2019 This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 04/09/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr.Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Assessee Has Raised Additional Grounds Of 2 Appeal Assailing Jurisdiction Assumed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short 'The Act') & Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act. At This Stage He Would Be Confirning His Submissions On The Additional Grounds Raised.

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

received while treating it as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) would make it clear that learned appellate authority has not disputed the fact that the assessee has received the disputed amount from the Mexican ... accepted that the receipt of money and identity of the payer has been established. However, reiterating the view "expressed by the assessing officer, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that in absence of any contract note towards rendering of services, the amount received cannot be treated as business income

Arch Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7008/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: S.A. Dhyani

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

benefit of enduring nature as a result of the corporate debt restructuring exercise and treated all the expenses as capital and disallowed them. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the expenditure could not be considered to have an enduring benefit. The Tribunal held the expenditure revenue in nature and spread

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 59/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Technocon Builders, The Deputy # 337, Sf 8, Commissioner Of Karuna Complex, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Circle - 2 (2)(1), Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaift3196L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajagopal, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Without Jurisdiction, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 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 facts, by disallowing the employees contribution to provident fund ... 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. Dr. Kamini Aravind Rao, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1482/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Dilip, Standing Counsel for DeptFor Respondent: Sri.Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 64

Schedule. Further, as per the aforesaid Notification, vide Sl.No.2, it is clearly mentioned that the CIT(A), Bangalore-2 shall be the Commissioner (Appeals) for any appeal filed by cases falling under the jurisdiction of Pr.CIT-2, Bangalore. In the present case, the first appeal has been decided

M/S. Tridhaatu Ventures LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1833/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1833/मुं/2020("न. व .2015-16) M/S.Tridhaatu Ventures Llp, 5Th Floor, B-Wing, Shrikant Chambers, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan: Aahft-6453-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-27(3)(4), Room No.427, 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mandhar Vaidya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/03/2022

For Appellant: Shri Mandhar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary

Section 36(1)(iii)

both sides on the limited issue of admission of additional ground heard. The additional ground raised by the assessee reads as under:- “The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring that the Appellant/asseesee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the amount of capital withdrawn by its partner and hence

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

been brought to its notice by the assessee or by the deductor or by the collector, and where the authority concerned is the Commissioner (Appeals), by the Assessing Officer also. (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 28

powers of the Tribunal, as was the issue before Their Lordships, these observations hold equally good in respect of the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is also important to bear in mind the fact that it was not even a fresh claim, it was simply a request for correction

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 28

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 28

Puyvast Maritime India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appellant is bad, erroneous in law and contrary to the facts and Page 2 of 10 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 facts, by disallowing the employees contribution to provident fund ... 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 applying the amendment made in Finance Act 2021, though the case pertains

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

deduction at source under section 194J, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the depreciation claimed. The Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the purchase of software amounted to acquisition of intangible asset and therefore, the payment

New India Roadways & Sunrise Stone Industries (Jv), Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6830/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Section 271Section 69C

grounds of appeal read as under :- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,85,471/- made by the learned Assessing Officer in assessment order towards unexplained expenditure on account of alleged bogus purchases without ... evidence on hand. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) here, more particularly, erred in ignoring the Appellant's submission that it had not made the alleged purchases at all during the year under appeal. The impugned addition of Rs. 15,85,471/- may, therefore, please be deleted in appeal. 2. Both

Morgan Stanley Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 626/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 9(2) {Successor To Morgan Stanley Solutions Room No. 261, 2Nd Floor India Pvt. Ltd.,} Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Antena Building No.5 Mumbai - 400020 Sector 30, Mindspace, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400090 Pan: Aadcm7403M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tajendra Pal SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Sunil M. Lala

Section 144C(5)Section 234D

Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax 377 ITR 533 (Del). In our view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has made a fundamental error by including these two companies in spite of the fact that he himself was satisfied that the assessee