← All Phrases

“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
50
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
35
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
28
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
26
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
24
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
13
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
13
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
12
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

Wm Global Sourcing India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 450/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

contribution to provident fund ("PF"] under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 1.1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ["CIT(A)"] and Learned Assistant Director of Income tax [“ADIT"], CPC have erred in disallowing the delayed remittance of the employee's contribution to PF without appreciating that the Page

Solution Manpower & Media Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CPC, Bengaluru/ Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2577/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Solution Manpower & Media Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit F-201, Pranay Nagar, Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Vs. Vazir Naka, Boriwali West, Bengaluru-560100 Mumbai-400 092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarcs 9744 F

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 43B

assessee against the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 29th March, 2019 issued by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, (The Learned Assessing Officer), wherein disallowance made towards deposit of Provident Fund and ESIC beyond due dates prescribed under

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 892/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

LodhaSupremus, Unit No 503-504, 5th Floor, Road No. 22, Kishan Nagar, Nr New Passport Office, Wagle Estate, Thane 400 064 [PAN: AAFCR5189M] Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent ITA Nos.: 993 &994/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 &2019-20 Ashish VishnuprakashAgarawal ……………...………… Appellant Shop No 54, C-Wing

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 891/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

LodhaSupremus, Unit No 503-504, 5th Floor, Road No. 22, Kishan Nagar, Nr New Passport Office, Wagle Estate, Thane 400 064 [PAN: AAFCR5189M] Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent ITA Nos.: 993 &994/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 &2019-20 Ashish VishnuprakashAgarawal ……………...………… Appellant Shop No 54, C-Wing

Surana Motors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 846/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

LodhaSupremus, Unit No 503-504, 5th Floor, Road No. 22, Kishan Nagar, Nr New Passport Office, Wagle Estate, Thane 400 064 [PAN: AAFCR5189M] Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent ITA Nos.: 993 &994/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 &2019-20 Ashish VishnuprakashAgarawal ……………...………… Appellant Shop No 54, C-Wing

Master Polishers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 845/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

LodhaSupremus, Unit No 503-504, 5th Floor, Road No. 22, Kishan Nagar, Nr New Passport Office, Wagle Estate, Thane 400 064 [PAN: AAFCR5189M] Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent ITA Nos.: 993 &994/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 &2019-20 Ashish VishnuprakashAgarawal ……………...………… Appellant Shop No 54, C-Wing

Nilesh V. Metha, Mumbai vs. DCIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1150/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

LodhaSupremus, Unit No 503-504, 5th Floor, Road No. 22, Kishan Nagar, Nr New Passport Office, Wagle Estate, Thane 400 064 [PAN: AAFCR5189M] Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent ITA Nos.: 993 &994/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 &2019-20 Ashish VishnuprakashAgarawal ……………...………… Appellant Shop No 54, C-Wing

M/S Vaishali Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1122/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

LodhaSupremus, Unit No 503-504, 5th Floor, Road No. 22, Kishan Nagar, Nr New Passport Office, Wagle Estate, Thane 400 064 [PAN: AAFCR5189M] Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent ITA Nos.: 993 &994/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 &2019-20 Ashish VishnuprakashAgarawal ……………...………… Appellant Shop No 54, C-Wing

Stg Refractory Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400042 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Karnataka-560500

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1063/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

LodhaSupremus, Unit No 503-504, 5th Floor, Road No. 22, Kishan Nagar, Nr New Passport Office, Wagle Estate, Thane 400 064 [PAN: AAFCR5189M] Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru ………………….…… Respondent ITA Nos.: 993 &994/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 &2019-20 Ashish VishnuprakashAgarawal ……………...………… Appellant Shop No 54, C-Wing

Emerson Network Power (India) P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1771/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

defined in Section 2(7A) of the Act which reads as under:- "(7A) "Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section

Emerson Network Power (India) P. Ltd, Thane vs. JCIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1975/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

defined in Section 2(7A) of the Act which reads as under:- "(7A) "Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

subject Page 27 of 66 land was held to be agriculture. In this regard, we would like to refer to the Certificate of Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture (Zilla Panchayat) Devanahalli, Government of Karnataka, dated 23.4.2014 wherein it has been certified as under: "This is to certify that M.R.Seetharam

The Nab Workshop for the Blind, Mumbai vs. DCIT(CPC), Banglore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1646/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalthe Nab Workshop For Vs. Dcit (Cpc) The Blind, 4Th Floor, Piramal Dr. Annie Besant Road, Chambers, Parel, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai – 400 030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt3397F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Gautam Nayak.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-1,Mumbai Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Nayak.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Pramod Nikalje.DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Natwarlal Chowdhury Charity Trust [1991] (189 IT 656 (Calcutta) 2. The Trustees, The B.N. Gamadia Parsi Hunnarshala v. Assistant Director of Income-Tax (Exemption) [2002] 77 TTJ 274 (Mumbai) 3. Abheraj Baldota Commissioner of 948/Bang/2017) Foundation Income-tax V. ITA The 947 & 948/Bang/2017. 4. Maker

Thiruvalaya Venugopal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 235/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sr.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.235/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2019-2020 Sri.Thiruvalaya Venugopal The Assistant Director of 5th Floor, Priyadarshini Income-tax, CPC, v. Petrol Pump Complex, Hosur Road Bangalore. Bommasandra Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 099. PAN : ACSPV3490P. (Appellant) (Respondent

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

adverse parties. We have also examined the records and we find that this Shri Sukla was examined by a number of officers. The Assistant Director of Investigation examined him on August 4, 1987, and in reply to question No. 2 in that deposition he confirmed that he was a dealer

Rashi Eco Tourism Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 50/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, Addl. DIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Rashi Eco Tourism Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director of Sy.No.177, Nowkalpalya, of Income Tax, CPC, Kagalipura, Off Kanakapura Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 082. PAN: AAECR 3967J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri

M/S. International Aerospace Manufacturing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 618/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shreeshkumar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri M S Nethrapal, Addl. DIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2019-20 M/s. International Aerospace Vs. The Assistant Director of Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, CPC, Sy.No.3, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru. Kempapura Village, Bengaluru – 560 037. PAN: AACCI 4063N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri

Parekhplast India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 76/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.76/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Parekhplast India Limited, 101,Shiva Plaza ,Marol Industrial Co-Operative Limited, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aabcp-4523-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Nfac,Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejas Sodha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tejas SodhaFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bang. - Trib.) (v) Flying Fabrication v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax[2021] 133 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi - Trib.) (vi)Eskay Heat Transfers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income –tax(2022) 134 taxmann.com 289 (Bang.Trib) (vii) Bromide Chemical Industries v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 135 taxmann.com 79 (Jabalpur- Trib.) (viii

Power Weave Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore, Bangslore

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

ITA 2126/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2126/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Power Weave Software बिधम/ Assistant Director Of Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Power Weave House, Plot Bangalore. No.27, Eleven Building, Road No.11, Near Tunga Hotel, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9690D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2126/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Power Weave Software बिधम/ Assistant Director of Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, CPC Vs. Power Weave House, Plot Bangalore. No.27, Eleven Building, Road No.11, Near Tunga Hotel, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी

F.E. Dinshaw Charities, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E)I(2), Mumbai

ITA 3287/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 1(11)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (E) - 1(2), ("the A.O") of reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the reopening proceeding /re-assessment