← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Imphal, Imphal vs. Shri Laishram Mani Singh, Imphal

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

ITA 31/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Ao. It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Had Access To More

Section 132Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee for concealing particular of its income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that no penalty could have been imposed on assessee under section 271(1)(c) as penalty on assessee could have been imposed under ... section 271AAB On further appeal, Tribunal sustained order of Commissioner (Appeals) Whether where a search under section 132(1) was initiated on or after 1-7-2012, penalty would be leviable on undisclosed income at rate and conditions specified under section 271AAB(1) and it excludes applicability of section

Navratan Jewellers, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 127/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 127/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

such a scenario, Section 251 of the Income Tax Act (as amended by the Finance Act, effective 1.10.2024), empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the assessment to the file of the A.O. for a fresh assessment, provided the assessment order is made under Section ... relevant provision is reproduced below: Section 251(1)(a) (as amended): “Where, in the course of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) is of the opinion that the order appealed against is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals

Kalpana Subramaniam, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(1), Pune

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

ITA 514/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.514/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Subramaniam, V The Income Tax Officer, 19A, B/H Regene Park, Ganpati S Ward-13(1), Pune. Chowk, Lunkad Towers, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Aswps7131C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Akashay Surana (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 28.12.2024For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250oSection 271(1)(c)

shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, in case of an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 64[or to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) on or after the 1st day of April ... Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the 65[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions

Mr.Jayaram Subramanaiam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 26/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Mr.Jayaram Subramaniam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9A Nn Laxmi Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Central Circle-2(1), Aswathy, Chennai Chennai- 600 087. [Pan: Afaps5678H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lavanya, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

assesse aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than the Deputy Commissioner) may appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) 3[before the 1st day of June, 2000] against such order an order against the assesse, where the assesse denies his liability to be assessed under

Spectrum Johnson Tiles Private Limited, Rajkot vs. The DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), Rajkot.

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed assessee

ITA 900/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm Aids Sittet S/Ita No. 900 /Rit/ 2024

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals) - 1, Jaipur erred in upholding action of Assessing Officer in disallowing Rs. 12,47,396/- u/s 14A of the Act by holding that interest ... bearing funds were utilized to earn exempt income. 2. The Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals) - 1, Jaipur failed to appreciate that there was no exempt income earned by the Appellant during the year under consideration. 3. The Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals) - 1, Jaipur erred in not following the cited judicial decisions

Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot.

ITA 607/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.607/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Ito Ward-2, (1) (2) Vs. Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Rajkot – 360001 At Sajadiyali – Rajkot New Aayakar Bhavan, At Sajadiyali Taluka, Race Course Ring Road, Jamkandorana, Dist, Rajkot – 360001 Sajadiyali – Rajkot 360001 Gujrat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2374L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 / 04/2025

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 84

that this was not a prima facie adjustment permissible u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act during the year under appeal. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Nagpur erred in not adjudicating ground of disallowance of claim of deduction

Champubhai Desabhai Vala, Amreli vs. The I.T.O., Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli

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

ITA 206/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhahahaha /Ita No. 206 /Rit/ 2024

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 08.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee: 1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant. Champubhai Desabhai Vala ITA No. 206/Rjt ... light of reasons recorded and thus assessment framed u/s 144r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. 3. On merits, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, erred in confirming addition of Rs. 22,10,864/- u/s 68 of the Act and thereby levying tax at rates

Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhilwara vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

ITA 1021/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

decided in such appeal. The use of the word 'considered and decided' leaves no room for doubt that if some issue is decided by Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, then, that issue cannot be subject matter of proceedings under section

Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhilwara vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1015/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Date Of Hearing."

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

decided in such appeal. The use of the word 'considered and decided' leaves no room for doubt that if some issue is decided by Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, then, that issue cannot be subject matter of proceedings under section

Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 935/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

ITAT held that delay in submission of Form No. 10B is a procedural defect, hence, where assessee had filed Form No. 10B before Commissioner (Appeals) before conclusion of appellate proceedings, exemption under sections 11 and 12 could not be denied to assessee only on account of late filing of Form

C G Marketing Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 134/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 80G

return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. 3. This appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed. However, the order of the further appeal of the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed. The appellant has approached this court

Shri Vijaypal Kishorilal Sharma, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2562/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Rinkesh Gupta and Mrs. Daini ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (Virtual)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

prescribed under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250(1). … (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason

Shri Vijaypal Kishorilal Sharma, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2561/PUN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Rinkesh Gupta and Mrs. Daini ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (Virtual)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

prescribed under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250(1). … (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason

M/S. Elcon Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2277/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(b)Section 246Section 250

avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after

Shree Suigam Khodadhor Panjara Pole, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80G(5)

ITAT held that delay in submission of Form No. 10B is a procedural defect, hence, where assessee had filed Form No. 10B before Commissioner (Appeals) before conclusion of appellate proceedings, exemption under sections 11 and 12 could not be denied to assessee only on account of late filing of Form

The Dcitbharuch Range, Bharuch vs. Heubach Colour Pvt.Ltd., Ankleshwar

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 547/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

comparison, but this was contested by the TPO due to the difficulty in isolating relevant margins and the lack of verifiable financial data. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the assessee that the two transactions (2002 and 2007) could not be directly compared without accounting for the differences. The time ... assessee's use of hindsight in justifying the ALP based on later developments was also rejected. Considering the difficulties with the CUP method, the Commissioner (Appeals) looked to the possibility of using an alternative method. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines suggested that the Net Present Value (NPV) calculation could

Shrikant Chandrakant Lokhande, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 2696/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Vijaykumar PawarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)

Provided that, 2 in a case falling under clause (b) and] on an application made by the appellant in this behalf, the 3 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

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry ... imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry ... imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

assessee in ITA No. 193/Hyd/2019 is partly allowed. ITA No.316/Hyd/2019 (Revenue's appeal) 17. The revenue has raised the following grounds : “ 1. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law in directing the A.O to restrict the disallowance to 2% of exempt income earned which is not supported by sec. 14A r.w.Rule ... CBDT's Circular No.5/2014 dated 11-02-2014. 2. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.140.54 Cr. made on a/c of provisions towards wage arrears of employees treating it as ascertained liability based the incorrect observation that assessee bank started making wage payments during the asst. year