“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

Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

this proposition the ld. AR referred to the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sai Computers Ltd v. Assistant Director of Income Tax. In this case the Co-ordinate Bench held as under: “17. under the circumstances, the assessee seeks to submit that once

Rose Trust, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 167BSection 234C

levy of tax and surcharge at a higher rate while processing the Return under Section 143(1) of the Act by the learned Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) (The Assessing Officer), (hereinafter referred to as "the AO"). It is submitted that the adjustment has been made to tax liability

M/S. the Thirunelly Service Co-Operative Bank, Wayanad vs. JCIT, Range-2, Kozhikode

ITA 421/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA

M/S. the Thirunelly Co-Operative Bankltd., Wayanad vs. JCIT Range-2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 420/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 80P

Listin Stephen's case (supra), after referring to a catena of decisions like CIT v. P.K. Shamsudin 2011 (1) KLT online 1211, K.V.George (supra), Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kumari A.B.Santhi [2002 (2) KLT Online 1007 (SC)], NSS Karayogam v. CIT 2014 (2) KLT Online 1208 and Grihalakshmi Vision

Hindustan Spimg Engineering Private Limited, Trichy vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Trichy

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1344/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ankita S. Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 43B

BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM I.T.A. No. 1344/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Hindustan Spimg Engineering Pvt. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Ltd., No. 43/62, Highways Colony, Circle-1(1), Trichy, New No. 44 Old Subramaniapuram, Trichy, Vs. No.4, Williams Road, Trichy, Tamil Tiruchirappalli

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 370/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT

Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

Petitioner / Appellant was processed and an order of intimation under section 143[1] of the Act dated 16/09/2020 came to be passed by learned Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC determining the Petitioner's / Appellant's total income at Rs. 34,78,00,210/- as against the returned total income

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 369/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT

Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2678/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 Continental Foundation Joint Assistant Commissioner Of Venture, Income Tax, Circle-38(1), Continental House-28, Vs. Room No.2202, E-2, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaaac0084D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Shivam Malik, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred & Was Not Justified In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs 2.31,80,000/- On Account Of Reimbursement Of Legal & Professional Fee Paid To Members Of The Appellant, By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40Ba) Of The Act, Conveniently Ignoring Earlier Orders U/S 195(2) To The Effect That Impugned Amounts Were Not Covered U/S 40(Ba).

Section 195(2)Section 244ASection 40Section 40b

withing the ambit of section 40(ba) of Act. He drew our attention to the letter of the assessee dated 29.03.2011 addressed to the Assistant Director of Income Tax, International Tax, placed on page 108-109 of the PB wherein it had been categorically mentioned that the legal and professional ... placing emphasis on page 108-109 of the PB, submitted that the assessee, vide its letter dated 29.03.2011 addressed to the Assistant Director of Income Tax, International Tax, had admitted that the arbitration proceedings spread from 2006-2010 and the assessee was obliged to repay the cost incurred

Sukhwani Associaties, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 449/PUN/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) 12, Pune ['CIT(A)'] erred in confirming the action of Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC), Banglore [hereinafter 'AO'] in passing the order u/s.143(1) of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133ASection 234A

requirement made. Explanation.—In this section,— (a) 'income-tax authority' means a Commissioner, a Joint Com missioner, a Director, a Joint Director, an Assistant Director or Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer, and for the purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1), clause (i) of sub-section

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133ASection 234A

Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1915/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Moradabad Bareilly Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -14(1)(1) Expressway Limited Room No. 432, Aayakar The Il&Fs Financial Centre, Bhawan, Plot No. -22, G Block, Vs. Maharishi Karve Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051. (Pan: Aagcm3309R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Sailesh Sarda. [Employee] Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. Sailesh Sarda. [Employee]For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 198Section 199Section 244ASection 249(2)

subject matter of the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assistant Director of Income Tax at Centralized Processing Center - CPC Bengaluru ('Learned AO') has erred in granting and restricting the credit of Tax Deducted at Source

Bay View Co Operative House Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3636/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3636/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2021-22) Bay View Co-Operative V/S. Income Tax Officer, Housing Society बिधम Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai Limited 604, Piramal Chambers, Bay View Co-Operative Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 Housing Society Limited, Cts No. 1319, B/2, Juhu Versova Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacab2013R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

Housing Soceity Limited “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT (A) 1, Kolkata ["the CIT(A)"] erred in upholding the action of the Assistant Director of Income-tax. CPC - Bengaluru ("the AO") in denying the Appellant's claim for deduction of Rs. 5.52,690 under section

Sudhir Bansal, Bhilai, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sudhir Bansal 8, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Adbpb3234H

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148(2)

arbitrary as per the mandate of Section 147/148 of the Act. 4. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel referred to the letter from the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-1, Raipur which he writes to the Assistant/Dept. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, wherein in the said

Shailesh Goyal, Tonk vs. ACIT, Centre Circle Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 496/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

section, - “Income-tax authority” means- (a) (i) a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, a Principal Director or Director, a Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer, or a Tax Recovery Officer; and (ii) includes an Inspector of Income-tax, for the purposes ... Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Additional Director or Additional Commissioner orJoint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, or (B) such Additional Director or Additional Commissioner orJoint Director, or Joint

Adglobal360 India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is allowed

ITA 434/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 434/Del/2025 (A.Y 2019-20) Adglobal 360 India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adit Plot No. 685 & 686 Udyogvihar, Circled 1(1), Phase V, Gurugram, Haryana, C. R. Building, Delhi 122016 Delhi Pan: Aaica3224D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Adv & Shri Alok Shukla, Adv Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025

Section 143(1)Section 194C(2)Section 194ISection 40Section 40a

sole grievance of the Assessee in the present Appeal is against order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the adjustment made by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short)to the tune

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Allahabad vs. The Income Tax Officer- 2(1), Allahabad

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

ITA 28/ALLD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.28/Alld/2025 Assessment year:2021-22 Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. The Assistant Director of Income 517, Baghambari Gaddi, Tax, CPC, Bengaluru. Allahabad PAN:AIKPS8398D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent by Shri

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Gropup Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

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

ITA 581/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 581/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Tbea Shenyang Deputy Commissioner Of Transformer Group Income Tax Vs. Company Limited International Taxation, National Highway No.-8, Vadodara Villae : Miyagam, Karja, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct4557F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Arpit Jain, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit. Dr 24/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 O R D E R Per Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 9Section 92C

between the head office and PGCIL. In this regard, he heavily relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-II, Ahmedabad vs. ITA No. 581/Ahd/2017 [M/s. TBEA Shenyang Transformer Group Company Limited vs. DCIT

Nirmala Nawal Phatarphekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2516/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250

erred in upholding the order dated 04-04-2019 passed under section 143(1) of the Act which was passed by the Assistant Director of Income-tax, CPC ("the AO") in violation of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The Appellant prays ... Tribunal. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the intimation order dated 04.04.2019 passed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) is in violation of section 143(1) of the Act and is bad in law, and therefore it should be quashed

Sri. Nithin Bagamane, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalaore

ITA 372/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

Rules, 1962 To The Addl. Director / Addt. Commissioner VISHAL ANAND The Joint Director / Jom Missioner The Deputy Director, PRADEEP S. AMIT DORAIRAJU, The Assistant Director,-SUNIL GOUTAM, SIVA PRALAD, The Income-tax Officer NICHE PARMA, MOATENIA. SONASEKHAR, C.SREENIVESALU, RAC Whereas for teine me and on the consideration thereof I have ... Commissioner or of the Joint Director or of the Joint Commissioner or of the Deputy Director or of the Deputy Commissioner or of the Assistant Director or of the Assistant Commissioner or of the Income tax Officer This is to authorise and require you [name of the Addl. Director