“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

Naveen Kumar Musinipally, Usa vs. ADIT (Int-Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly

ITA 323/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234A

made without complying with the provisions of section 127 of the Act. Therefore erred in confirming the assumption of the jurisdiction by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad (‘the Ld.AO") u/s section 153C r.w.s144C(3) of the Act. 3. The assessment framed by the Ld.AO

Jayshree Devi Ramji Gupta, Mumbai vs. ADIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 6048/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6048 & 6047/Mum/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Jayshree Devi Ramji Gupta Assistant Director of Income 303, Sai Madhuban Tax, Centralized Processing Vs S.L. Road, Above Mani’s Café Centre Mulund (West) Mumbai - 400080 [PAN: AHKPG8740Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant

Jayshree Devi Ramji Gupta, Mumbai vs. ADIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 6047/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

M/S Ankur Developers & Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

ITA 428/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 68

documents, etc. However, by virtue of sub-section (1A), an extended jurisdiction is conferred upon the higher authorities including the Director, Joint Director, Assistant Director or Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation). Under this provision, if such authority has reason to suspect that any income has been concealed ... commissions. 90[(1A) 91[If the 92[Principal Director General or] Director General or 92[Principal Director or] Director or 93[Joint] Director or Assistant Director 94[or Deputy Director], or the authorised officer referred to in sub-section (1) of section 132 before he takes action under clauses

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar It Park Thane vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4338/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT exercised option for lower rate of V M ProconPvt. Ltd. tax under section 115BAA, v. assessee could not be deprived Assistant Director of Income- of lower rate of tax and delay in tax filing Form 10-IC ought to have CO. 242/Mum/2025. R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION been

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar, It Park vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4327/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

Pawan Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2509/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

2509/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2020-21] Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. The A.D.I.T to as 'the Act') for Assessment Year ('AY') 2020-21 by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') and the disallowance made are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Amrendra Pratap Singh, Varanasi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3(1), Gaya

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

ITA 101/PAT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 69A

assessed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act, solely on the basis of some information shared by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit- 1, Varanasi, notwithstanding the fact that the said amount was from sale of ancestral agricultural land which was outside the ambit of income ... Amrendra Pratap Singh. assessed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act, solely on the basis of some information shared by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit- 1, Varanasi, notwithstanding the fact that the said amount was from sale of ancestral agricultural land which was outside the ambit

Narendra Kachrulal Abad, Jalna vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 866/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.866/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Narendra Kachrulal Abad, V The Income Tax Officer, Abad House, Nal Galli, S Ward-1, Jalna. Kadrabad, Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Acspa9531C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Aurangabadpassed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.03.2019, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 03.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

u/s.148 of the Act : “Reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Information has been received from the Office of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1(3), Ahmadabad that they have carried out coordinated limited purpose surveys u/s 133A of the Income ... Aurangabad, it is observed that it is just a mere rubber stamp. 6. In this case, Assessing Officer has claimed receipt of information from Assistant Director of Income Tax(Investigation), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad regarding a survey conducted on 23.03.2015. We have read the letter dated 18.03.2016 of the Assistant

Surendra Devid Thokal, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1173/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1173/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Surendra Devid Thokal, V The Income Tax Officer, B14, Thokal Niwas, Chawni, S Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Aurangabad – 431001. Pan: Aehpt3043B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt. Sonall Sonkavde – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Noida Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 03.01.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 09.01.2020. 2. At The Outset Of Hearing, No One Attended On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Written Submission Or Adjournment Letter Was Filed.

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

Appeal No.2833 of 2016 order dated 12.10.2022. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. In this case, Assistant Director of Income Tax(CPC) vide order under section 143(1) dated 09.01.2020 disallowed assessee’s claim of Rs.50,74,476/-. The reason mentioned

Dipti Jagdish Satwani, Mumbai vs. AO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3669/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. BalajiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

Assessment Year 2023-2024 9. The above decision has since been following by the Tribunal in the following cases: (a) Nirmala Murli Relwani vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax [2022] 145 taxmann.com 293 (Mumbai - Trib.), Priya Savina Murzello vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 148 taxmann.com 472 (Mumbai - Trib

N R Farms Private Limited, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2), Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 251/NAG/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryn.R. Farms Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(2), Nagpur. Flat No. 302, Swami Sadan, Vs. Gpo Square, Civil Lines, Nagpur Pan: Aaecn 4552 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Ld. AdvcoateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 115BSection 148Section 250Section 68

short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2 2. In this case, the Assessee had received an information from the office of Assistant Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.)-1, Bhopal that some of the companies which were run and controlled by Mr.Sharad Kumar Darak, providing accommodation entries through which

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under :

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

been carried out at the residential as well as office premises of Om Agarwal Group of cases on 16.01.2019 by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Unit-Kota. Therefore, a letter dated 29.01.2019 was written to the ADIT (Inv.), Kota requesting him to provide the copies of seized documents

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 396/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 153ASection 69

been carried out at the residential as well as office premises of Om Agarwal Group of cases on 16.01.2019 by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit Kota. Therefore, a letter dated 29.01.2019 was written to the ADIT (Inv.), Kota requesting him to provide the copies of seized documents

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 395/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &

Section 153ASection 69

Sh. Pavitra Kothari, Ajmer vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Ajmer

10. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) and the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, are hereby set aside

ITA 882/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 69

Bharat Bomb. 8. In order to verify the claim of the assessee, letter dated 03.12.2018 vide no. 836 has been issued to The Assistant Director, Office of Director of Enforcement, Jaipur. The ED has filed his reply vide letter dated 17.12.2018 which is reproduced hereunder: "with reference to the abovementioned

Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2545/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 253(5)Section 263

also observed that on the same issue of the depositing Rs.45,00,000/- in current account of State Bank of India, the ld. Assistant director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-2, Belagavi had also issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act in which the assessee in its reply dated

Liebherr Werk Nenzing Gmbh, Austria vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1346/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of GMBH Income-tax (International Dr Hans Liebherr STR 1, Taxation), Circle-3(1)(2), STR 1,6710, Nenzing, Mumbai Austria Assistant Director of Income- C/o. Liebherr India Private tax, Bangalore Limited The Assistant Commissioner of Unit No. A301 - A305, 03rd Income-tax (International level, 05th Floor

Nimmatoori Ramesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 597/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273BSection 4

absolve the liability of the assessee. In this regard, he relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection vs., Kum. AB Shanti and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of P. Bhaskar ... Court of Madras in the case of P. Bhaskar vs., CIT (supra) and the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection vs., Kum. AB Shanti (supra), has levied penalty of Rs.33,75,000/- being 100% of the amount received by way of cash