“Assistant Director”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(9B) / Section 117731 judgments

The decision most relied on for Assistant Director is Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income (20 SOT 353), cited in 50 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Assistant Director

Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income

20 SOT 353 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

An educational institution that collects money over and above the prescribed rates, essentially acting as a vendor of education for profit, may not be considered a charitable institution under Section 2(15) and may be viewed as operating with a profit motive.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Assistant Director of Income Tax

304 ITR 264 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 cannot be initiated if the original assessment proceedings, initiated based on a filed return, are still pending. This includes situations where the time for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) has not expired.

292 ITR 416(SC) Galileo Nederland BV v. Assistant Director of Income-tax, Circle-i(2), (Intl. Tax), New Delhi

367 ITR 319 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The principle of consistency requires that the Assessing Officer or First Appellate Authority must follow decisions made in earlier years, unless there are good and sufficient reasons to deviate. An assessee's status should not be altered arbitrarily without assigning reasons or distinguishing facts.

STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER

302 ITR 275 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Information from the Enforcement Directorate indicating inflated purchases can serve as a valid basis for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, initiating reassessment proceedings.

Trib.) (v) Flying Fabrication v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

133 Taxmann.com 84 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act made by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective in nature, meaning payments made before the amendment are not affected by its retrospective application.

Jabalpur); Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar v. Assistant Director of Income Tax

192 ITD 562 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

Cases cited by this decision often involve assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Murasoli Trust v. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions IV), Chennai

65 Taxmann.com 186 · 2016 · Reported

citing judgments

A trust engaged in activities that constitute trade, commerce, or business is not entitled to claim its object as charitable if those activities fall foul of the proviso to section 2(15). Running a petrol outlet may not be considered a business incidental to the main object of a trust.

Ashapura Minichem Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax

40 SOT 220 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

Income of a non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India if it falls under clauses (v), (vi), or (vii) of section 9(1), irrespective of whether the non-resident has a place of business or connection in India or has rendered services in India, due to the retrospective amendment of Section 9 by the Finance Act, 2010.

Judgments citing Assistant Director

Tessolve Semiconductor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

General ground: 1.1 The learned Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Madurai (hereinafter referred to as CIT (A) for short) and the learned Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) have erred in passing the appellate order under section

Jiwan Satya Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 1382/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1382 & 1381/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2020-21 Jiwan Satya Co-operative Housing Assistant Director of Income Tax, Society Ltd. Central Processing Centre, Vs Plot No. 411-412 Bangalore 15th Road, Bandra West Mumbai - 400050 [PAN: AAAAJ7387C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant

Jiwan Satya Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 1381/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Sri. Amit Kumar Rajendra Prasad Singh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 306/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36

return u/s 139 [1] of the Act are deductible, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 36[1][va] of the Act. Thereafter, the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC passed an intimation u/s. 143[1] of the Act determining the Appellant's total income at Rs.68,35,620/- as against

M/S Ceat Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1052/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

MEMBER Assessment Year :2021-22 M/s. Ceat Ltd. 463, RPF House, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030 PAN: AAACC-1645-G - Appellant Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC 1st Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1, 48/2, Beratenaagraha Begur, Hosur Road, Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 100 - Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala

M/S Punjab Small Industries and Exports Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 556/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 556/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20 M/S Punjab Small Industries & Vs. The Dcit / Acit, Export Corporation Ltd., बनाम Circle 2(1), Udyog Bhawan, 3Rd To 6Th Floor, Chandigarh Sector 17-A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp1602M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Counsel for the Assessee has filed a written submission on this issue which is as under:- “GROUND NO. 3 that the Ld. Assistant Director of Income tax, CPC. had disallowed the expenses of bonus paid at Rs. Rs. 68,50.825/- under section 43B of the Income

Laxmi Narayan Residency D Co. Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrilaxmi Narayan Residency D Vs. Assistant Director Of Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Income-Tax Cpc, Plot No. 189, 190, 191, Bengaluru/Ito Ward(1)1, Village Majjwada, Gokhale Road, Thane Pokhran Road No. 2, Unnati Garden, 3, Thane (W.)-400610 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaal7961N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(19)Section 250Section 7Section 70Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Laxmi Narayan Residency D Vs. Assistant Director of Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Income-tax CPC, Plot No. 189, 190, 191, Bengaluru/ITO Ward(1)1, Village Majjwada, Gokhale Road, Thane Pokhran

Fortum Sar B.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2028/DEL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2022-23 Fortum SAR B.V. Vs Assistant Director of Income Lage Mosten 55, 4822 Breda, Tax, Central Processing The Netherlands. Centre, Bengaluru DCIT- 1(3)(1), International PAN- AADCF 9813 E Taxation

Ksb Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1313/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Ksb Limited The Assistant Director Of 601 Tower 1, Income Tax, Cpc Runawal R Square, Vs. Bengaluru, Lbs Road, Karnataka- 560500. Mulund (W.)- 400080. Pan: Aaack5918J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari A/W. Shri Mihir Chitaliya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das- Cit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1060135975(1) Dated 25/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised By The Appellant: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ksb Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant") Has Preferred An Appeal Before Your

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari a/w. Shri Mihir Chitaliya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das- CIT D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 35DSection 43B

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. KSB Limited The Assistant Director of 601 Tower 1, Income Tax, CPC Runawal R Square, Vs. Bengaluru, LBS Road, Karnataka- 560500. Mulund (W.)- 400080. PAN: AAACK5918J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present ... learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and holding that the appeal filed by the Appellant against order of Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru („Learned AO') as infructuous. The Appellant further craves leave to prefer an appeal on the following grounds, which

Rehanabad Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4798/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4798/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2021-11) Rehanabad Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Housing Ward-24(1)(1) Society Limited Piramal Chamber 8, Rehanabad Housing Mumbai. Society Limited Spence Road, Byculla Mumbai-400 008. Pan : Aaaar4330D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ritu Punjabi Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Rehanabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai (The Assessee/Appellant) For Assessment Year 2021 – 22 Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Indore (The Learned Cit – A) Dated 31/10/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Intimation Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19/10/2022 Passed By The Central Processing Centre Bangalore [ The Ld. Ao ] Wherein The Assessee Was Denied The Benefit Of Deduction Under Page 1 Of 9

Section 143Section 80

appeal it was confirmed. 2. Thus, the only grievance of the assessee is that the CIT – (A) erred in confirming the action of The Assistant Director of Income Tax, central processing Centre in denying the deduction of Rs. 510,497/– under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-49(1), Kolkata, Ultadanga vs. The Rifle Factory Co-Operative Society Ltd, Ishapore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 813/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income The Rifle Factory Co-Operative Tax, Circle – 49(1), Kolkata Vs Society Limited Nawabganj, P.O.- Ishapore Dist. – North 24 Parganas Pin - 743144 [Pan : Aaaat6436E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somak Basu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Inf Ac Has Passed The Order In Favour Of The Appellant Society Without Giving The Due Opportunity To The Ao As No Letter Calling For Remand Report Was Either Sent/Triggered Through Name-Based/Designation Based Email Of The Ao, But In The Appellate Order, It Is Mentioned That The Ao Was Directed To Submit A Remand Report In This Case On 20.04.2023 When The Ld. Cit Appeal, Imf Ac Accepted Additional/Fresh Documents Like Bank Statement Of Sbi Bank Having Account No. 11223335284 Furnished By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Somak Basu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

disposed off by NFAC till date. 5. It is seen that the mater regarding which the addition has been made was investigated by the Assistant Director of Income Tax,, DSD Kolkata by a notice dated 29,03,2017issued under Section 131 (1A) of the Act and no adverse inference

Pravin Mansukhlal Pateliya, Hinganghat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Wardha

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

1239/Del/ 2011; Asst.yr.2005-06 2. Praveen Kumar Pruthi vs. Income Tax Officer, ITAT, Delhi “F” Bench, ITA. NO. 478/Del/2011, Asst.Yr. 1999-2000 3. Assistant Director of Income Tax vs. White Industries Australia Ltd, ITAT Bench ‘C’ Kolkata, ITA No. 507/Kol/2010, Asst.yr. 1992-93. 4. Jai International vs. Deputy Commissioner

Autoliv India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 799/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M. Harischandra Naik, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['Act'] pursuant to the appeal filed against the Intimation dated 25 October 2022 issued by the Assistant Director of Income-tax, Centralized Processing Center ['ADIT-CPC'] u/s 143(1) of the Act, is bad in law and on facts Erroneous addition

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1575/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

updates which are inextricably linked to sale of software cannot be characterized as 'royalty':  In the case of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Delhi /TAT) (ITA No. 5433/DEL/2011), :-15-: ITA. Nos: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 SA Nos: 20 & 21/Chny/2024  The Mumbai ITAT in the case

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1574/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1573/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)