← 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)

Senniappan Mani, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3230/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Senniappan Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7, Sivasakthi Nagar, Ward 2(1) 1St Street, K T C Main Road, Tirupur. Parappalayam, Tirupur 641 604. [Pan: Bbnpm 7005C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Senthil Kumar, Advocate Virtual, Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 232 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In Condonation Affidavit Given By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs.1,00,98,950/- U/S 69 On Account Of Unexplained Investment & Rs.1,11,66,838/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unexplained Money. Assessee Further Challenged The Order Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Who Did Not Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax Which Was Payable In The Light Of The Mandatory Provision Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act. The Assessee Is Now In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 147Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69Section 69A

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)] 4 or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt

Late Shri Wirendra Singh Bolia, Manik Bagh Road Indore vs. Jurisdictional AO, Indore/Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Indore/Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 712/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 147

adjudication by CIT(A) on merit in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides *"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

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 1529/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH a
Section 12ASection 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054066417(1) dated 30/06/2023. 5. On knowing the dismissal of appeal it was requested to him to obtain such order of Commissioner (Appeals) so that further needful could be done. On 23/11/2024 the appellant trust first time saw the dismissal order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30/06/2023 ... trustees nor to the secretary of the trust, namely, Hari Charan Singhal before 20/11/2024 of the passing of the dismissal order by the Commissioner (Appeals) for AY 2011-12 on 30/06/2023. 7. Now after knowing this fact that my above mentioned appeal is dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals

M/S. Global Star Realtors Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

ITA 44/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 69B

held that, "No other evidence was found to establish that the consideration was passed on over and above the registered sale consideration. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) considered the issue in detail and allowed the appeal of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case ... sale transaction. Therefore, since the facts are identical and department could not place any other material to controvert the finding given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and no other decision of any High Court or Apex Court was brought on record controvert the decisions relied upon by the assessee

M/S. Global Star Realtors Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 43/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 69B

held that, "No other evidence was found to establish that the consideration was passed on over and above the registered sale consideration. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) considered the issue in detail and allowed the appeal of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case ... sale transaction. Therefore, since the facts are identical and department could not place any other material to controvert the finding given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and no other decision of any High Court or Apex Court was brought on record controvert the decisions relied upon by the assessee

M/S. Global Star Realtors Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 42/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 69B

held that, "No other evidence was found to establish that the consideration was passed on over and above the registered sale consideration. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) considered the issue in detail and allowed the appeal of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case ... sale transaction. Therefore, since the facts are identical and department could not place any other material to controvert the finding given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and no other decision of any High Court or Apex Court was brought on record controvert the decisions relied upon by the assessee

M/S. Global Star Realtors Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

ITA 41/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

M/S. Global Star Realtors Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 40/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E. Sridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

DCIT/ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Nagpur vs. Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram, Dhamangaon Amravati

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 573/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143Section 144Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271

speech to understand better. 4.3 Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under

Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram, Amravati vs. DCIT ACIT Cir-Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 504/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143Section 144Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271

speech to understand better. 4.3 Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Pvr Tourist Home, Cochin

ITA 428/COCH/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)Section 48Section 50Section 50(1)Section 50A

assessee's appeal on the levy of capital gains tax on land value was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that the reference to the valuer was not justified and therefore, the assessment of capital gains did not arise. On appeal to the High Court: "Held, that

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

difference of opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer. The revised return was filed because some of the expenditures were disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for year 1998-89, although the expenditures were not doubted. There are cases where an expenditure is disallowed by the Assessing Officer ... allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is again disallowed by the Tribunal and in appeal allowed by the High Court but may be disallowed by the Supreme Court. Merely because there is difference of opinion for allowing or disallowing the expenditure between the assessee and the Assessing Officer, it cannot

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone West Ltd., (Thereafter Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

difference of opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer. The revised return was filed because some of the expenditures were disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for year 1998-89, although the expenditures were not doubted. There are cases where an expenditure is disallowed by the Assessing Officer ... allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is again disallowed by the Tribunal and in appeal allowed by the High Court but may be disallowed by the Supreme Court. Merely because there is difference of opinion for allowing or disallowing the expenditure between the assessee and the Assessing Officer, it cannot

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5414/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

designs is taxable in India as FTS. Challenging the additions so made, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee had entered into ... India. He submitted, the amount received is not taxable as FTS. 10. Strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has entered into separate contracts with JSW Steel Ltd. for supply of plants and equipments and supply

Weatherford Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, New Delhi vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Dehradun

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

ITA 498/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Mar 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 3Section 4

such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing

Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, Dehradun

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

ITA 1617/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 3Section 4

such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing

ADIT, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific Ltd., Gurgaon

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

ITA 1138/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 3Section 4

such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing

Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Cyprus

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

ITA 5405/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 3Section 4

such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing

Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

ITA 5311/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 3Section 4

such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing

Rajesh Chimnani L/H Late Shri Sudham Chand Chimnani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 79/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.79/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajesh Chimnani, L/H. Late Shri Sudham Chand Chimnani, B-17/7, Near Pani Tanki, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Acfpc0343R

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 251

Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment". The above amendment to section 251 of the Act is relating to the powers of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals). Sub-section (1) of the said section provides that Commissioner (Appeals) have the powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul ... penalty order, in the case of an appeal against an order imposing a penalty while disposing of such appeal. Prior to the above amendment, Commissioner (Appeals) was not having the powers of setting aside the assessment order. However, vide aforesaid amendment by inserting a proviso in clause (a) of subsection