“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)

Avinash Dattatray Muley, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

Scheme 2024 and revision cannot be done under section 263. It is seen from the available records that the assessee has filed appeal with Commissioner (Appeals) (hereinafter CIT (A)] against the impugned assessment order dated 19.09.2022 and thereafter the assessee filed application under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

Jan Seva Mandal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3445/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

general or special order, authorise any income general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not tax authority, not being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application

Sh. Abhay Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 546/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69A

taxmann.com 393 (Agra Trib.), where it has been held that Section 251, read with section 144, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Commissioner (Appeals) Powers of [Exparteorder] Assessment year 2005-06 Despite several notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1), assessee did not attend assessment proceedings, nor filed ... Assessing Officer, therefore, passed an exparte assessment order under section 144 on assessee Further assessee in spite of large number of adjournments granted by Commissioner (Appeals) did not produce any document in respect of grounds of appeal, nor made written or oral submissions before him Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, proceeded

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Section 251 (1)(a) of the IT Act which is applicable from 01.10.2024 onwards which reads as follows:- In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)shall have the following power--- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment Provided ... invoked the provisions of proviso to section 251(1)(a) which is reproduced as under: "Powers of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals). 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment

Gauri Sagar Shivale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 101/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 156Section 2(47)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 80T

Provided that, 2 in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from

Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed vs. DCIT(E0 Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2176/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2176/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Dcit, Exemption Circle, Mandal, Aurangabad. 0 Anand Bhavan, Nagar Road, At Post Tq Ashti, Dist. Beed- 414203. Pan : Aaets0130K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &

Section 115Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

verified in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Upon the filing the declaration, any appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of the disputed income or disputed interest or disputed penalty or disputed fee and tax arrear shall be deemed to have been

M/S. Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2969/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeem/S Gemini Dyeing & Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Printing Mills Pvt Ltd, Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai 16B, 1St Phase, Peenya Indl. Room No.130, 1St Floor, Aayakar Area, Peenya, Bangalore-560 Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 058 020 Pan : Aabcg0943J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Ajay NagpalFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251

Luthra (HUF) [(2016) 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom)], wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “Section 250, read with section 251 of the Act — Commissioner (Appeals) — Procedure for Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Prosecution — Assessment Year 2006-07 — Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to apply his mind ... issues arising from the impugned order, irrespective of whether such issues were raised by the appellant — Held, Yes — Whether the law empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution — Held, No.” In light of the above legal position, we are of the view that the assessee deserves

Infinity Cars Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT03 Central Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2369/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah,ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 263

extended arm of port-related services. The education was disallowed on the ground that the certificate was withdrawn on October 5, 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. A search was carried out on its premises ... assessee was not entitled to the deduction under section 80-IA. P a g e | 12 A.Y. 2019-20 Infinity Cars Private Limited The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The Special Bench of the Tribunal held that by the clear language of section 153A together with

Runi Impex, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 3(2), Surat

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

ITA 96/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra Sindhu, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

Chennai) (TM), the ITAT held that where assessee justified delay of 310 days in filing appeal before Tribunal by stating that Commissioner (Appeals)’s order was misplaced and forgotten and when same was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing ... case, the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of its director. In the said affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner (Appeal)’s order was misplaced and forgotten. It was found while sorting out the unwanted papers and thereafter steps were taken for the preparation

M/S Chhanabhai Kanjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 757/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 41(1)Section 68

from provisions of clause(a) of sub-section(1) of Section 251 of the Act. It reads as follows: 251. Power of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals).- (1) In disposing of an appeal, the [….] Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- (a) in an appeal against ... requires prior opportunity of hearing before any enhancement. Provisions of sub-section(2) of Section 251 is reproduced for ready reference: (2) The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless

Runi Impex, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(2), Surat

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

ITA 221/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra Sindhu, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

Bimal Kumar Drolia, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 347/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147(6)Section 148Section 250Section 34

explanation regarding the identity, source and genuineness of such deposits were submitted, the same were treated as unexplained cash credits. ■ On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that in case the assessee failed to identify the beneficiaries in that case the amounts credited in the bank account of the assessee would ... stand confirmed as unexplained cash credit under section.68. ■ On appeal, the Tribunal reduced the rate of 0.37 per cent as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) to 0.15 per cent by merely following its own order for earlier assessment years. ■ On revenue's appeal: 7.1. The Hon'ble High Court

Dadiba Kali Pundole, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomem Tax -17(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3265/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Amey Wagle & Shri AzimFor Respondent: 07.07.2025

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194QSection 234Section 234CSection 246ASection 250

deductor or any collector aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed day) may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against— (a) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 115VP or an order against the assessee

Nirmala Nawal Phatarphekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2516/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250

reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. There is no reason why the Tribunal

Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 131/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Vs. Ito, 1, Bajar Faliya, Valod, At & Po – Ward – 1, Talod, Tal – Tapi, Tapi – 394640, Bardoli Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amzpd6196K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 274Section 68

w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which empower the CIT(A)/NFAC cases where assessment order was passed as best judgement case under section 144 of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals) shall be empowered to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment

Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2069/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 69C

submitted that sales worth Rs. 394 crore were accepted by the GST Department, implying that corresponding purchases must have occurred. The Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the records and written submissions, noted that despite the paper documentation submitted by the assessee, there was no direct evidence of actual movement of goods ... held that in cases of bogus purchases without actual delivery, the entire amount could be added under section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s ground relating to the addition of Rs. 39,00,60,232/-, finding no merit in the explanation and documentation offered

Sudhir Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 644/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh and Shri Anuj Musaddi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha &

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

respect, it is relevant to exam- ine the provisions of section 250(6) which are reproduced as under: “250(6) – The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision ... 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 Assessing Officer's order

Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Verve Industries Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 2479/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ito 5(3)(1), Verve Industries Pvt. Ltd., 526, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road, Plot No. 16, Office No. 1, Ground Vs. Mumbai-400020. Floor Aman Chamber 2, Mama Permanand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aahcv 1577 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul TaleraFor Respondent: 09/07/2025

Section 133(6)Section 68

additional evidence before the Production of additional evidence before the Production of additional evidence before the 8[8a[Joint [Joint [Joint Commissioner] Commissioner] Commissioner] (Appeals)] (Appeals)] (Appeals)] 9[and Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before (1) The appellant shall ... entitled to produce before (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the 8[8a[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] 9[or, as the case may be, [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

notice by the assessee 94[or by the deductor] 95[or by the collector], and where the authority concerned is 96[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the 97[***] 98[Commissioner (Appeals)], by the 99[Assessing] Officer also. 1[***] (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)