“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)

Dawoodi Bohra Jamat, Udaipur vs. ITO Ward Exemption Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/JODH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act. Effective October 1, 2024, the Finance Bill 2024 introduced significant changes to the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 251 of the Income-tax Act. The new amendment empowered the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside assessments made u/s 144, which dealt

Islauddin, Jodhpur vs. ITO-Phalodi, Phalodi

ITA 800/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 69A

loan is doubtful. That being the case, the addition under section 69A of the Act cannot be made. Therefore, the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has to be sustained. It would also be pertinent to mention that that the assessee received notice

Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dct, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR

Section 10Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 153A

assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order- (a) an order passed by a [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) [before the 1st day of October, 1998] [or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under [***] [Section 154], [Section 158BFA,] [***] section 250, {section ... 270A,] [section 271, section 271A [,section 271AAB, section 271AAC, section 271AAD] [,section 271J] or 272A]; or [(aa) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section 271, section 271A, section 271AAC, section 271AAD or section 271J;or] [(b) an order passed

Universal Realty, Pune, India vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Swargate, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 811/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 147Section 250Section 264

through the provisions of Section 251 of the Act, which read as follows:- 9 Universal Reality "Powers of the 63[***] 64[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the]65[Commissioner (Appeals)]. 66 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 63[***]*65[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the following powers ... other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. 70 [ (1A) In disposing of an appeal, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or 67 annul the assessment

Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

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

ITA 419/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Miss Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132

assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too narrow a view to take of the powers of the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow

Prasanna Sadashiv Shete, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

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

ITA 2761/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(3)

condone the delay in filing of appeal has been conferred on CIT (A) by the provisions of Section 249(3) which states 3 "The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting ... within that period.” 4.2.2 For condonation of delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, the assessee has to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. The term sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act but the meaning of the same has been explained

DCIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5610/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 5(1)(1) Cc, 9010A Bharat Diamond Bourse, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Circle 5(1)(1), R.No.568, Aaykar Mumbai-400051. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aagca2472D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Fenil Bhat Respondent By : Dr. K. R. Subhash, (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(I) "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 16,13,66,235/-Levied U/S 271G Of The It Act, 1961 When The Statutory Requirement Of Rule 10B(1)(E), Stating The Methodology For Benchmarking Transactions Using Tnmm, States That The Net Profit Margin From The Controlled International Transaction & The Uncontrolled International Transactions Should Be Separately Provided By The Assessee & Their Statutory Requirement Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Assessee?" Arjav Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Fenil BhatFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Section 250Section 271GSection 92C

method. In this regard, detailed written submission has been filed by the assessee before the TPO which has been properly evaluated by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the difficulty in maintaining the information sought by the TPO has been well explained and analysed. It is also necessary to observe, ultimately ... Schachter Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd.(supra). In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any. infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271G of the Act. Grounds are dismissed.” 11. On perusal of the said order, it is observed that

Mr. Narendra Kuma Rbal, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

ITA 178/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

which are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.: 178/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Narendra Kumar Bal. “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.” 6. Thus ... 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

Brig. (Retd.) Jitendra Kumar Narang, Noida vs. ITO, Ward 11(3), Pune

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

ITA 228/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

been brought to its notice by the assessee or by the deductor] 22[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

Isc Speciality Chemicals LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 45Section 47Section 47A(4)Section 48Section 50BSection 56

Year 2018-19 on following ground of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,58,72,150/- made by learned AO applying section 45 of the Income ... limited company into a limited liability partnership (LLP). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in confirming action 2 ITA NO 457/Mum/2025 AY: 2018-19 ISC Specialty Chemicals LLP of learned AO of applying provisions

Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi Ito Ward-42(2)(4) Room No. 375, Plot No. 2, Shashtri Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra. Nagar, Near Bus Depot, Bandra West, Maharashtra-400050. [Pan No. Bexpk0365Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 21.08.2024 Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner (Appeals) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 18.12.2023for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Hon. CIT erred in making

Akshay Devidas Tajane, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward -1, Chandrapur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

ITA 161/NAG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

90/90A Assessing Officer disallowed claim, on ground that assessee had not filed Form No. 67 along with return Assessee filed Form No. 67 before Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner (Appeals) held that since assessee had failed to file Form No. 67 within due date specified for filing return under section ... foreign tax credit - Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form No. 67 filed before Commissioner (Appeals) Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee] * Ritesh Kumar Garg Vs ITO in ITA No. 261/JP/2022 dated 15/09/2022 - ITAT Jaipur Bench held

Vikas Vijay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

assessment dated 29-03-2022, and penalty initiated u/s 271AAC(1) of the IT Act, 1961 are subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore considering the Explanation-1 to section 263 of the IT Act, the proceedings initiated are bad in law and requires to be quashed ... under: Section 271(1)(c) [Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1) If the (Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that nay person- (b). or (c) has concealed the particulars of "his income or so*** "furnished inaccurate

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Elica Pb Whirlpool Kitchen Appliances Private Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 407/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that Quantum Addition has been deleted by ITAT for A.Y.2014-15 in Assessee's own case in

Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

sufficient. The Legislature was conscious of this fact and, therefore, had specifically stipulated in Section 92D(3) that the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) may require a person to furnish any information or document in respect thereof and on failure of the said person to furnish the documentation within

DCIT, Swargate vs. Elica Pb Whirlpool Kitchen Appliances Private Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 383/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Haris Muhammad Sait, Bengaluru

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld. AO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2580/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate

Section 144Section 68

evidence subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Rule 46 provides that: - Rule - 46A , Income-tax Rules, 1962 Production of additional evidence before the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [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

Yazdin Jimmy Mistry, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1525/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainyazdin Jimmy Mistry Vs. Ito, Ward – 42(3)(2) 2/7, Rustom Baug, Sant Room No. 609, 6Th Savta Marg, Byculla, Floor, Kautilya Mumbai – 400027. Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Agapm9097K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 250Section 3Section 44ASection 69A

assessee didn't respond adequately to several notices issued by AO, said cash deposit was treated as unexplained income under section 69A On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) had afforded sufficient opportunities to assessee to put up its case on merits before him, but no material/evidence was placed on record by assessee ... substantiate sources of credit in its bank account Commissioner (Appeals) thus sustained addition made by A.O. under section 69A Held, yes Whether considering facts of instant case, there was no infirmity in view taken by lower authorities who had rightly sustained addition and accordingly, same was to be upheld - Held

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Bandra Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2703/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 56

following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the 2 ITA No.2703/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 Centre For The Study Of Social Change addition ... quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,80,00,000/- an income of the Appellant without mentioning as to which provisions of Sections 11 to 13 contemplate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

same, no addition of cash credit was called for. As there were certain cash deposits in the bank account of the creditor, the Commissioner (Appeals) felt that the assessee had not been able to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Daulat ... judicial pronouncement, it can be said that the source of the source cannot be inquired by the department. Hence, the addition sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and the same could be deleted." 6. Mohar Singh V/s. Dy. CIT 77 TTJ 218 (Agra) "Admittedly the onus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68