← All Phrases

“Income-tax Officer”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(25) / Section 1175,006 judgments

The decision most relied on for Income-tax Officer is CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), cited in 1,162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Income-tax Officer

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 775 · 1954 · Supreme Court
1,061
citing judgments

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

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.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT
263 ITR 101 · 2003 · High Court
266
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
56 ITR 198 · 1965 · Supreme Court
230
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer

Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 359/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.359/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Baglan Prathmik Shikshak V The Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, S New Delhi. Nampur – 423204. Maharashtra Pan: Aadab1392C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : "1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Rejecting Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) For A Sum Of Rs.5,06,310/- Being Part Of The Book Profit Of Appellant Society Without Appreciating The Fact That Earning Of Interest Is An Integral Part Of Society'S Business & Appellant Prays For Allowing Such Deduction.

Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society

M/S Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir.-1, Siliguri

ITA 675/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarιτα No.675/Kol/2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kamal Mittal, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

ITA 6129/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the First Appellate Authority the assessee duly submitted relevant set of documents in order to substantiate the source of cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization. However, it appears from the record that no endeavour has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) to consider this very aspect of the matter which was duly established by corroborative evidences including sale-deed, legal heirs certificate etc. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter the Ld. DR has not been abl

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kamal Mittal, Vs Income-tax Officer, 1367, Sector-37, Ward-5(2)(1), Gautambudh Nagar Noida-201303. PAN- AAPPM 9475 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Abhishek Mathur, Adv. Department represented

Ajeet Singh Tomer, Gwalior vs. ITO 2 (2), Gwalior

The appeal stands dismissed as

ITA 94/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 250

BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajeet Singh Tomar, Shivaji Vs. Income-tax Officer, Nagar, Aamkho Pahadiya, Ward 2(2), Gwalior. Lashkar, Gwalior-474001 (MP) PAN : AQRPT5558P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Manuj Sharma, Advocate Department

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree with, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order and prejudicial to the interests ... Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 12. In context of the present case, applying ratio of the above referred judgments, the scope of the Commissioner's power of revision u/s. 263 of the Act would be, when the Assessing Officer conducts

Prashant Packaging Pvt.Ltd, Patna vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cir-2, Patna

ITA 644/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] Ι.Τ.Α. No. 644/Pat/2024

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

Calcutta High Court in the case of Girdharilal Goenka vs. CIT (supra) as cited by the assessee has held thus: “The Income-tax Officer has to take a pragmatic view of the matter. The Income-tax Officer should take a practical approach to problems and strike a balance between

Shree Suigam Khodadhor Panjara Pole, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80G(5)

limitation in furnishing audit report in Form no. 10B. 11. In the case of Vardhman Stanakvasi Jain Shravak Trust vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 172 taxmann.com 165 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) [14-02-2025], the ITAT held that delay in submission of Form No. 10B is a procedural defect, hence, where assessee

M/S L.B.Wines Private Limitted, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 84/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.84/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S L.B.Wines Private Ltd. Pr Cit-I B-1, 1446/13A Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम/ Chhoti Haibowal Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana-141001. Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Jldlo-0809-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Muskan Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 22-12-2017. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Made Out A Case Of One Of The Possible Views. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Ld. Ao Failed To Make Requisite Enquiries On The Issues

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (CA) and Ms. Muskan Garg (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ISection 263

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated

Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur, Solapur vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1230/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise

Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1027/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Pun/2024

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 263(1)Section 68

this Explanation declares, for the removal of doubts, that for the purposes of the said sub-section, an order passed by the Income-tax Officer shall include an order of assessment made on the basis of/directions issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144A or section 144B ... provided that an order made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in performance of the functions of an Income-tax Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under section 125(1)(a) or section 125A(1) of the Income-tax Act, shall also be regarded

Income Tax Officer -5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shree Sundha Steels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA 1756/Mum/2025

ITA 1756/MUM/2025[2008]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeincome-Tax Officer -5(3)(1), Vs M/S Shree Sundha Steels Private Mumbai, Limited, 5Th Room No.526, Floor, 15/16, D-Wing,Groundfloor, Gora Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 Gandhi Palace, 122, Khetwadi Back 020 Road, Khetwadi, Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Aaics1816M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR. DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Income-tax Officer -5(3)(1), vs M/s Shree Sundha Steels Private Mumbai, Limited, 5th Room NO.526, Floor, 15/16, D-Wing,GroundFloor, Gora Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 Gandhi ... date of order 20/01/2025. The impugned order was 2 ITA 1756/Mum/2025 Shree Sundha Steels Pvt Ltd emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer- 5(3)(4), Mumbai (in short, the “Ld. AO”) passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, date of order

Gujarat State Aviation Infrastructure Company Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Wad-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 81/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application filed
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 28Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

Income Tax Officer, Thiruvallur vs. Jai Plastic Industries, Tiruttani

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

ITA 3077/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3077/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Jai Plastic Industries, Ward-1, V. Sri Lakshmi Residency, Tiruvallur – 602 001. Near Kamal Theatre, Tiruttani – 631 209. Pan: Aanfj 3535G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Dr. E. Phalguna Kumar, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

made without proper examination of the appellant's books of account and relevant financial records. (iv) In Kishan Singh & Associates Vs Income-Tax Officer, ITA No. 1688/DEL/2021 the Delhi Bench of the ITAT held as follows. “5. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available ... 378/Jodh/2023, the Jodhpur bench. - Kamakshiben Mayashankar Vyas Vs Income Tax Officer, ITA No. 408/Ahd/2024, the Ahmedabad Bench. - Kishan Singh & Associates Vs Income-Tax Officer, ITA No. 1688/DEL/2021 the Delhi Bench Parvez Peerpasha Inamdar Vs Pr. CIT - 3, ITA - No.144/PUN/2021. The Pune bench of the ITAT held as follows

Himanshu Chhabra, Agra vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 171/AGR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 250(6)Section 69A

BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Himanshu Chhabra, 21/151, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Dhulia Ganj, Agra. Ward 1(1)(2), Agra. PAN : AIFPC0506L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Prem Gul, CA Department by Sh. Shailender Shrivastava

Pawan Kumar Chauhan, Mainpuri vs. ITO- Ward 2 (5), Agra

ITA 162/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 80

ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 162/Agr/2022 Assessment Year:2012-13 Pawan Kumar Chauhan, S/o | Vs. | Income-tax Officer, Shri Mahesh Singh Chauhan, Ward 2(5), Mainpuri. Devpura Road, Mainpuri. PAN : AESPC4383A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Advocate Department

Mayur Thakorbhai Champaneriya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1049/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1049/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Mayur Thakorbhai Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Champaneriya Surat Room No.616, 6Th Floor, Vs. C-37, Hariom Nagar, Gujarat Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Housing Board, Pandesara, Gate, Opp,. New Civil Hospital, Surat-394 210 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahjpc 7855 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By Assessee Emanates From The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Has Applied For The Benefits Of Direct Vivad Se Visvas Scheme -2024 (Dtvsv-24) & His Application Has Been Accepted. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Further Submits That He May Be Allowed To Withdraw This Appeal. He Has Also Filed Copy Of Form No. 1 Of Dvsv-24, Which Was Issued By The Designated Authority. This Fact Was Confronted With Learned Senior- Departmental Representative Of The Revenue. The Ld.Sr-Dr For The Revenue

Section 250

SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1049/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid hearing) Mayur Thakorbhai Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Champaneriya Surat Room No.616, 6th Floor, Vs. C-37, Hariom Nagar, Gujarat Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Housing Board, Pandesara

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

ought to have been made. Now, there cannot be an estoppel against statute. If in fact the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer was incorrect, the defect is not cured by the attitude taken up by the assessee." 33. In the case of CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

ought to have been made. Now, there cannot be an estoppel against statute. If in fact the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer was incorrect, the defect is not cured by the attitude taken up by the assessee." 33. In the case of CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India

Rohit M. Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed

ITA 6434/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rohit M. Savla Income-Tax Officer – B/4, Flat No. 501, Kutchi Sarvoday 27(3)(1),It Office, Vashi Nagar, P.L. Lokhande Marg, Govandi Vs. Railway Station, (Vv), Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai – 400043. Pan: Aacps 9562 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 37Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Rohit M. Savla Income-tax Officer – B/4, Flat No. 501, Kutchi Sarvoday 27(3)(1),IT Office, Vashi Nagar, P.L. Lokhande Marg, Govandi Vs. Railway Station, (VV), Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Del;Hi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

ITA 4853/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income-tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income-tax Officer would be acting without jurisdiction