“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)

Oracle (Ofss) Processing Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 2837/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 906B

case, there is no liability on the assessee to deduct tax at source on such payment. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ground no.1, is dismissed

Uni Design Jewellery (India) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assesse appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1983/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleuni Design Jewellery Vs. Dcit, Cc-1(2) (India) Pvt Ltd., 904, 9Th Floor, Old Plot No. 3, Uni Design Cgo Bldg, Mk Road, House, Seepzwicel, Opp Mumbai-400020. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3940J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vijay Mehta.C A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48,Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Mehta.C A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

book sales and made addition of ` 3,70,237, under section 69A of the Act. The assessee challenged the aforesaid additions before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without any success. 11. Reiterating the stand taken before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Authorised Representative submitted, the difference arising after the reconciliation ... rate. 12. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Uni Design Jewellery (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that the difference in stock was established on record as the assessee was unable to reconcile the difference with valid explanation. Therefore

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi

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

ITA 5326/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0828R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

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

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 297/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

machine charges, repairs of boundary walls and wells etc. incurred on land before its sale which was required to put property in saleable condition - Commissioner (Appeals) appreciated nature of expenses and allowed proportionate claim of Rs. 4.56 lakhs while computing long term capital Gain - Whether there being no infirmity ... findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing these expenses towards cost of improvement, findings of Commissioner (Appeals) were to be confirmed - Held, yes [Para 35] [In favour of assessee] III. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Expenditure incurred on earning business income) - Assessment year

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 296/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

M/S. S P R Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 295/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Int. Taxn., New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

embedded software while completing the assessment for the impugned assessment years. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred appeals before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Taking note of the fact that in case of Alcatel Lucent France in assessment year 2006-07, both Learned Commissioner and Tribunal have reversed ... relied upon the Assessment Order passed in case of another group company viz. Alcatel Lucent France. As discussed by the learned Commissioner(Appeals), the decision of the Assessing Officer in case of Alcatel Lucent France was not only reversed by the First Appellate Authority but Tribunal also upheld the decision

DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Alcatel Lucent International, France

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

ADIT Infratel Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), New Delhi

In the result ground number 1-3 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 289/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Adit Infratel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-45/27, Dlf City, Phase-1, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002` New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl6812B Assessee By : Ms. Manisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Lahoti, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 80Section 80I

manufacturing activities and, therefore, the LCD monitor claimed to be manufactured by the assessee was not covered under Schedule XIV. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance holding that selling the product in the brand name was no bar to claim the benefit on account of manufacturing activity ... assembling components. On revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal: HELD The contentions raised by the revenue in this third appeal which are nothing but reiteration of what have already been agitated and correctly rejected by the two appellate authorities below. Aside from

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dhv B.V, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2834/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 44D

Date of pronouncement 08.02.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: This is an appeal by the Revenue against order dated 27.10.2016 of learned Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue reads as under: “1. On the facts ... assessment by determining the total income at Rs.8,43,47,198/-. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that his predecessor

ITO, Exemptions Ward- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Sondhi Charitable Hospital Society, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Section 11Section 12Section 69

regard is completely silent. On the said aspect, the petitioner has filed number ITO (E) vs. Sondhi Charitable Hospital Society of orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment years 1965-66 onwards upto assessment year 1994-95 and orders of the Tribunal from 1966-67 upto

Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 823/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesopariwala Exports Vs. Acit, Cc-8(1) 21St Floor, Nirmal Bldg, R-656, Aayakar Nariman Point, Bhavan, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400021. 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfs6325E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Ritu Kamalkishore.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Dilipkumar Shah.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2022. Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022. आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A) -50, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms.Ritu KamalKishore.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Dilipkumar Shah.Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

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

M/S Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd, Hassan vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

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

ITA 1509/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80P(2)(e)

manufacture of textile goods and the setting up of a wind mill had absolutely no connection with the manufacture of textile goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim of additional depreciation. On appeal to the High Court, the Hon'ble High Court

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 allowed

ITA 670/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 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 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

ACIT Cir- 2(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 261/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 32(1)

matter of fact came to the conclusion that ne amount was actually hold an account of goodwill. This is @ factual finding. The Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the assessee had filed copies of the orders of the High Court ordering amalgamation of the above two companies; that

Procter & Gamble Health Ltd.(Formerly Known As Merck Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2062/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Before Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 271

towards free samples in the relevant assessment years. Whereas, simply relying upon the decision of the learned DRP in assessment year 2013-14, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has restricted the disallowance to 20% of the cost incurred. Admittedly, against the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue has not preferred

Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 763/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

from which the assessee could, if at all, recover its debts. The amount was deductible as a bad debt. (ii) That both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that there was no real accrual of interest. It had been noted that the interest

Jt CIT(OSD) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 730/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Mr. Sunil Gajanan Chitre, Palghar vs. CIT (A)-3, Palghar

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

ITA 2405/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

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

Looms India Patner, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7188/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 3

Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... 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 Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever