← 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)

Income-Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Ankit Gold Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 429/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri
Section 133(6)Section 145Section 68

alleging that the sales were unsubstantiated and lacking in verifiable details. However, in appeal, the ITO vs. Ankit Gold Ltd. Asst.Year –2017-18 - 9– Commissioner (Appeals) found the action of the AO to be unjustified both in fact and in law. The Commissioner (Appeals), in our considered view has rightly ... amount again as unexplained cash credit. Thus, in light of the above facts and consistent with numerous judicial pronouncements, in our considered view the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that the addition under section 68 of the Act was uncalled for and directed deletion of the same. Therefore, the deletion

Schaeffler India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ina Bearing India Pvt. Ltd.), Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Cicle-1(1)(2) Now DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1872/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 92C

furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ITA No. 1872/Ahd/2024 Schaeffler India Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year —2009-10 -5- 4. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee contended that it had determined the Arm’s Length Price of its international transactions with Associated Enterprises using the Transactional Net Margin Method ... India Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Year —2009-10 “1. Section 271(1)(c) states: 271. (1)If the Assessing Officer or the***4 [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person

Virbala Kiritkumar Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-5 Present Jurisdiction Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1213/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

payment and further failed to reconcile difference in payment as per tax audit report and that as provided during assessment proceeding. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal held that it was for Assessing Officer to assess fair market price and give comparative instances. Since Assessing Officer had not done same ... ITAT held that where Assessing Officer had not brought any comparable case to demonstrate that payments made by assessee to directors were excessive/unreasonable, Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly deleted addition. Virbala Kiritkumar Patel vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2009-10 - 8– 15. Looking into the judicial precedents on the subject which have held

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 546/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

computing total loss of Rs. 29,83,16,673/- under the normal provision and total income under Section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, Commissioner (Appeals) passed order under Section 263 of the Act, on 17.01.2012 on the issue of additional depreciation claimed, carry forward unabsorbed depreciation and provision of doubtful

N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 464/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

computing total loss of Rs. 29,83,16,673/- under the normal provision and total income under Section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, Commissioner (Appeals) passed order under Section 263 of the Act, on 17.01.2012 on the issue of additional depreciation claimed, carry forward unabsorbed depreciation and provision of doubtful

DCIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Sahil Vachani, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

submitted specifically that it was an investment company and in its own case for Assessment Year 2000-01 the Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Assessment Officer and the Tribunal has also confirmed the stand of the Commissioner (Appeals) for that year and, therefore

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Morbi vs. M/S. Kishan Plus Minarals, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

ITA 124/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the facts of the case and in ignoring that there was complete backup of soft data maintained record of unaccounted sales ... accounting software "Profit NX" found during the course of Survey. 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the facts that during the course of survey, parallel books of accounts were found having a record of whole sales amount

The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Junagadh vs. Shri Damjibhai Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Junagadh

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

ITA 32/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jun 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI ORDERS PER BENCH: This is bunch of twenty nine appeals, including Cross

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

perusal of section 246A of the Act, which enumerates a list of orders which are appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals), it has categorically stated that any assessee who is aggrieved by any of the following orders, may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the specified orders which are mentioned from ... though the issue was with regard to the power of enhancement of the appellate authority the proposition that was laid down was that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot go beyond what was there in the return of income or the assessment order of ld. AO and is restricted to find

Ajinkya Madhyamik Shikshak Sevak Sah. Patsanstha, Maryadit, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

under Section 1th of the income-tax Act 1961, provides following relaxation in respect of Income-tax compliances by the taxpayers. a) Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) under Chapter XX of the income-tax Act, 1961 for which the last date of filing under that Section is 1 April

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Anil Reddy Yedugury Sandhinti, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

ITA 2145/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 54F

benefit of section 54F because construction of the house had commenced before sale of the shares i.e. on 17 th September, 2008. 6. Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal have relied upon decisions of Allahabad High Court and Karnataka High Court in CIT v H. K. Kapoor

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Spicejet Limited, New Delhi

In the results, both the appeals of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4597/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 250Section 40

source, the Assessing Officer disallowed various other expenses under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance made ... Rs.3,75,556/- iv. Logo Printing of Rs.25,15,000/- 39. As far as supplemental rent/maintenance reserve is concerned, it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the lease agreement has recorded a factual finding that the supplemental rent was paid for acquisition of aircraft. He has observed that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Spicejet Limited, Gurgaon

In the results, both the appeals of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4595/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 250Section 40

source, the Assessing Officer disallowed various other expenses under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance made ... Rs.3,75,556/- iv. Logo Printing of Rs.25,15,000/- 39. As far as supplemental rent/maintenance reserve is concerned, it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the lease agreement has recorded a factual finding that the supplemental rent was paid for acquisition of aircraft. He has observed that

A.G.T. Electronics Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2767/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 44A

bars from filing of these appeals. The ld. Senior DR relied on CBDT circular No.229 dated 09.08.1977, wherein creation of new appellate authority namely Commissioner (Appeals) is defined and vide this circular, the CBDT has clarified ‘Other provisions’ under para 27.6 as under:- AGT Electronics Ltd. :- 7 -: 27.6 Other provisions ... procedure to be followed in appeals filed before them, and other related matters. These provisions are briefly indicated below : Section 2(16A) - Definition of Commissioner (Appeals). Section 116(c) - Inclusion of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as an income-tax authority. Section 117(1) - Appointment of Commissioner (Appeals). Section

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2042/MUM/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025
For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani
Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 41(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

transactions were eligible to nine years old Assessing Officer treated amount due to creditors as assessee's income and added under Section 41(1) Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition Tribunal upheld view of Commissioner (Appeals) - Revenue submitted before High Court that because liability was barred by period of limitation, same would ... Whether merely because liability was barred by time, it did not cease to be debt and, thus, Tribunal was right in upholding view of Commissioner (Appeals) - Held. yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee] 35. We also reply upon the decision of the case of Commissioner of Income

Kbs Creation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax -Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6477/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 92C

above ground of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appals according to law. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at or before the time

Perumal Ananthakumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 831/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.831/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Perumal Ananthakumar, Income Tax Officer, No.144 Gst Road, Chromepet, Non-Corporate Ward-22(1) Chennai-600 044. Chennai [Pan: Aigpa0836Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Madhavan, Rtd, Addl.Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Madhavan, Rtd, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

deem it necessary to reproduce the provisions of Rule-46A of the Income Tax Rules:- “……7Production of additional evidence before the 8[8a[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] 9[and Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the 8[8a[Joint Commissioner] (Appeals ... case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the 10[Assessing Officer], except in the following circumstances, namely :— (a) where the 10[Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have

Palanichamy Nanthini Devi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(4), Chennai

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

ITA 565/CHNY/2025[219-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 565/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Palanichamy Nanthini Devi, The Income Tax Officer, Staff Nurse Room Stanley Medical Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -17 (4), College, Chennai. Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Axfpn-2460-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Kumarasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 69ASection 80C

Delhi, for the assessment year 2019-20, dated 17.12.2024. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is opposed to law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal in part

Late Soli C. Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify TDS claim made by the Appellant. 4) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in completely ignoring decisions, including of the Jurisdictional High Court which had already interpreted the law point involved. 5) The Learned Commissioner of Income

Late Soli Engineer, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment 3 years stands allowed

ITA 1984/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 234BSection 234C

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify TDS claim made by the Appellant. 4) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in completely ignoring decisions, including of the Jurisdictional High Court which had already interpreted the law point involved. 5) The Learned Commissioner of Income