← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. Smt Reena Sudhir Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel for the department), Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

cannot be income in the hands of the assessee and consequently no fault can be found with the orders of either ITAT or the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. To consider the contention, we shall first refer the provisions of Section 206 of the Indian Companies Act. The relevant portion of which ... lodged the shares for transfer. 9. Considering these circumstances, in our opinion, we find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as confirmed by the CIT. The questions of law therefore, as raised would not arise and consequently, appeal dismissed.” 12. From the above

Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust, Adipur vs. The ITO (Exemption), Ward(1), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.902/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust The Ito (Exemption) बनाम Plot No.1, Dc-2 Ward-1 Rambaug Road Rajkot. Vs. Ward-6A, Adipur. Pan : Aabts 1102 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Chennai[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 02.05.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Intimation Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Cpc) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 31.10.2015. Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust 2 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

dated 31.10.2015. Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust 2 2. Grievances raised by the assessee in this appeal are as under: 1.The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bangalore in making adjustments to the returned income of the Appellant by way of an Intimation ... denying the benefit of Section 11 to the assessee, failing to appreciate that this was not a case of prima facie adjustment. 2.The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding action of the CPC Bangalore in not giving deduction of Rs.37,93,094/- claimed

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot

In the result, assessee's ground No

ITA 49/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)

102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) Officer applied section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations and it was for revenue to prove that

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot

In the result, assessee's ground No

ITA 48/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)

Pankajbhai C inlalLodhiya v. DCIT 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 Officer applied section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips — Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations and it was for revenue

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot

In the result, assessee's ground No

ITA 47/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)

Pankajbhai C inlalLodhiya v. DCIT 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 Officer applied section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips — Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations and it was for revenue

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot

In the result, assessee's ground No

ITA 46/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)

102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) Officer applied section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations and it was for revenue to prove that

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot

In the result, assessee's ground No

ITA 102/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)

102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) Officer applied section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations and it was for revenue to prove that

Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Pune vs. ITO, Ward13(1), Pune

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

ITA 224/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

payable by him: Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf the Commissioner (Appeals) may for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of (that clause

Dodhia Chem Tex Private Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 765/Mum/2025 is dismissed

ITA 765/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedodhia Chem Tex Private Vs Dcit-Cc-3, Thane Room No.12, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Limited, 98/2, Dodhia House New Mavji Ashar It Park, Thane (West)-400 Compound, Narpoli Behind 604 Ratan Talkies, Bhiwandi, 421 302 Pan : Aajcs0580R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Simran DhavanFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal,(CIT DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, effective from 01.10.2024. The relevant statutory provision reads as follows: “251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 7[***] 9[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or 11annul the assessment

ACIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. M Nalin & Co, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection No

ITA 684/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit-19(1), Mumbai Vs M Nalin & Co 5Th 805,8Th Floor, Prasad Chambers, 506, Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400 Tata Road No.02, Opera House 012 Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Aaafm3223H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. R.R Makwana, Addl.CIT
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

record, protective assessment for the assessment year 1992-93 was carried in appeal by the assessee and on the assessee succeeding before the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue has filed second appeal before the Tribunal which is stated to be pending. It is pertinent to note that the first appellate authority

M/S. Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed

ITA 672/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143Section 44A

issuing cheques lenders had got sufficient balance in their account Moreover, amount had also been repaid through account payee cheques In view of above, Commissioner (Appeals) taking a view that loan transactions were genuine, deleted addition made by Assessing Officer Tribunal upheld order of impugned addition hands of assessee

Arun Ashar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6875/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R
Section 132(4)Section 69A

question of adding the same amount in the hands of the assessee clearly was not permissible. [Para 41] As rightly noted by the Commissioner (Appeals) there was no evidence to show that the 24 cheques stated to have been issued by the assessee on behalf of the broker, DDC were ... parties and did not himself substantially gain from these transactions. [Para 45] In that view of the matter, the concurrent view of both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the addition of the aforementioned sum to the income of the assessee was not warranted, does not call for interference

Arun Ashar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6874/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R
Section 132(4)Section 69A

question of adding the same amount in the hands of the assessee clearly was not permissible. [Para 41] As rightly noted by the Commissioner (Appeals) there was no evidence to show that the 24 cheques stated to have been issued by the assessee on behalf of the broker, DDC were ... parties and did not himself substantially gain from these transactions. [Para 45] In that view of the matter, the concurrent view of both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the addition of the aforementioned sum to the income of the assessee was not warranted, does not call for interference

Vidhi Electronics LLP, Bhayandar vs. PCIT, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6861/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarvidhi Electronics Llp, V/S. Principal Commissioner Of A-102, Sudama Tower, बनाम Income Tax, Ashar It Park, 6Th Prakash Market Road, Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Bhayander West, Thane- Industrial Estate, Thane 401101, Maharashtra (West), Thane – 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Appfv4987Q .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha Kaushik,(Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

Vidhi Electronics LLP, Thane transaction. Section 250 of the Act, inter alia provides that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shall state the point of determination, decision and the reasons for such decision while disposing of the appeal in writing.However,in the case under consideration, theld.CIT(A) has failed

M/S Ceat Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer OSD TDS Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 6425/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH

M/S Ceat Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer OSD TDS Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 6424/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

source and accordingly computed tax payable under Section 201/(l) of the Act. Action of the assessing officer was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have carefully gone through the agreement entered into by the assessee with C&F Agents and perused the terms relating to services

M/S Ceat Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer OSD TDS Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 6423/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

source and accordingly computed tax payable under Section 201/(l) of the Act. Action of the assessing officer was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have carefully gone through the agreement entered into by the assessee with C&F Agents and perused the terms relating to services

M/S Ceat Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer OSD TDS Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 6422/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH

M/S Ceat Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer OSD TDS Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 6421/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

source and accordingly computed tax payable under Section 201/(l) of the Act. Action of the assessing officer was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have carefully gone through the agreement entered into by the assessee with C&F Agents and perused the terms relating to services

M/S Ceat Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer OSD TDS Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 6420/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

source and accordingly computed tax payable under Section 201/(l) of the Act. Action of the assessing officer was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have carefully gone through the agreement entered into by the assessee with C&F Agents and perused the terms relating to services