← 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)

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

thereon accordingly. 2:4 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not following earlier years favourable Tribunal order for the AY 2008-09 and Commissioner (Appeals) order for the AY 2012-13 in deciding the ground. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2:5 The Appellant submits that the payments of Rs.10 ... compute its total income and tax thereon accordingly. 2.5 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not following earlier years favourable Commissioner (Appeals) order for the AY 2008-09 and AY 2012-13 while deciding this issue. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2.6 The Appellant submits that the payments of Rs.8

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 350/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

thereon accordingly. 2:4 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not following earlier years favourable Tribunal order for the AY 2008-09 and Commissioner (Appeals) order for the AY 2012-13 in deciding the ground. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2:5 The Appellant submits that the payments of Rs.10 ... compute its total income and tax thereon accordingly. 2.5 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not following earlier years favourable Commissioner (Appeals) order for the AY 2008-09 and AY 2012-13 while deciding this issue. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2.6 The Appellant submits that the payments of Rs.8

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 320/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

thereon accordingly. 2:4 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not following earlier years favourable Tribunal order for the AY 2008-09 and Commissioner (Appeals) order for the AY 2012-13 in deciding the ground. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2:5 The Appellant submits that the payments of Rs.10 ... compute its total income and tax thereon accordingly. 2.5 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not following earlier years favourable Commissioner (Appeals) order for the AY 2008-09 and AY 2012-13 while deciding this issue. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2.6 The Appellant submits that the payments of Rs.8

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

ITA 319/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

thereon accordingly. 2:4 The NFAC/CIT (A) erred in not following earlier years favourable Tribunal order for the AY 2008-09 and Commissioner (Appeals) order for the AY 2012-13 in deciding the ground. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2:5 The Appellant submits that the payments of Rs.10 ... compute its total income and tax thereon accordingly. 2:5 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not following earlier years favourable Commissioner (Appeals) order for the AY 2008-09 and AY 2012-13 while deciding this issue. Without prejudice to the foregoing: 2.6 The Appellant submits that the payments of Rs.8

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, Haryana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, Haryana

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

ITA 668/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Respondent: Ms. Rattan Kaur & Shri A.K. Jindal, C.A's
Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

allowed the deduction, the question, which was already settled by the Supreme Court, will not become a debatable one. As rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and theTribunal, the Assessing Officer was not required to repeat the or wrong, and/or perpetuate the illegality committed. On the contrary, the assessing ... clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 of the Act. Under the circumstances, neither the assessing officer, nor the Commissioner (Appeals), nor the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has committed any error in holding that the provisions of section 143(1)(a) would be attracted; that

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

Luthra (2016) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) wherein Hon’ble Court confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal wherein the appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh disposal by observing as under :- 5 “8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before

Rajib Dutta Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2078/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

taxmann.com 348 (Madras), it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order

Smt. Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma, Raiganj vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Raiganj

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

ITA 1085/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 69A

Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma. a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order

Somireddy Sudhakar Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1505/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. AR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274

shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject- matter of an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year ... penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of 4 the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the 9 ITA.No.1505/Hyd./2025 case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner

Thulasi Chamarthy, Chittoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Chittoor

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1374/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 54Section 54F

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in not correct either on facts or in law and in both. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred, in mechanically treating the entire property sold in May 2017 as one short-term capital asset being the residential flat constructed in March 2016, ignoring the clear ... asset), thereby failing to apply the settled law that land and building have separate periods of holding for capital gains purposes. 3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is unjustified in upholding the Ld. Assessing Officer's blanket disallowance of indexation benefit and exemptions u/s 54/54EC on the long-term capital gain

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6571/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6569/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6568/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Rajpurohit, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.5488/Mum/2025
Section 132(4)Section 153C

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6480/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Centra Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6479/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle, Mumbai

ITA 6478/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross

Darpan Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5489/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross

Darpan Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5488/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross ... opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vulnerable. The assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross

Amarjit Kaur Ranjit Singh Anand, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4377/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik JainFor Respondent: 30/09/2025
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

averments made therein, in substance, are that the order of the averments made therein, in substance, are that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 04.06.2024 passed under learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 04.06.2024 pass learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 04.06.2024 pass section 250 of the Income section ... received, wherein the value of the property was determined at received, wherein the value of the property was determined at crore. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly restricted . The learned Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly restricted . The learned Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly restricted the addition to ₹22 lakh 22 lakh, being the difference between

Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

impugned judgment has also made a reference to the earlier assessment proceedings of this assessee. It appears that in the earlier occasion the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the payment of distribution charges, cannot be termed as payment for copyright, but can at best be a business income. We notice