← 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

Sajal Biswas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, WD 24(1), Hooghly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1244/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm I.T.O, Wd 24(1), Hooghly Sajal Biswas C/O. S.N.Ghosh& Associates, Aayakar Bhawan, Hooghly, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, Khadina More, G.T.Road, 3Rd Vs. 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203. Floor, P.O- Chinsurah, P.S. Off Hare Street, Kolkata, Chinsurah, Hooghly, West Bengal, 712101 West Bengal, 700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awppb6287R Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

accruing on doubtful debts is credited to a suspense account, It need not be included in the assessee's taxable income, provided the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that recovery is practically improbable. Twenty-six years later, on June 20, 1978, in view of the judgment of the Kerala High

India Standard Loan Trust Xxvi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax OSD TDS Circle 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 803/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

deciding the appeal on merits filed against the order passed under section 201/201(1A) ('the order') of the Act of the Income-tax officer (TDS) - 1(2) ['learned AO'] where it is held that section 194 LBC of the Act is applicable on Excess Interest Spread” 2. At the outset

Ashoka Tanwr, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 966/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalashok Tanwer, F-162, Panchsheel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 Pan No.:Aaxpt8144R ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Godha, CA., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Shreya Singhvi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshreya Singhvi, 80, Kiran Marg, Suraj Nagar Jaipur 302 006 Pan No.: Agmps 2639D ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 250Section 45Section 54F

hence, the assessee was not entitled to relief under section 54F. [Para 9] [2009] 313 ITR 411 (Ker.) Mrs. Meera Jacob vs. Income-tax Officer Section 54F does not provide for exemption on investment in renovation or modification of an existing house. On the other hand, construction of a house

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

without issuance of statutory notice u/s 143(2) is not sustainable in law – 1.8 G. N. Mohan Raju V/s Income-tax Officer [2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore - Trib.) [2015] 167 TTJ 236 (Bangalore – Trib.)] Held: assessee requested vide Assessing Officer to treat original return as one in response to section

Liquidhub Analytics Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd), Pune vs. NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1952/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt Nilu Jaggi, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Ramesh Ramani, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

2428/DEI/2014 - Date of Judgement/Order: 11/09/2020 - No addition can be made merely on the basis of presumption. SHAMK International (P.) Ltd. Vs Income-Tax Officer 9(3)(1), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai) – IT Appeal Nos. 6756 to 6758 (Mum.) of 2008 & 407 (Mum) of 2009 Date of Judgement/Order : August 10, 2012 -Addition

Sri Arumuga Sugars Limited, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central - 2, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1616/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1616/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Arumuga Sugars Limited Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 51, Appusamy Layout, Redfields, Chennai-2. Vs. Coimbatore-641 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aancs-4704-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkat Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkat Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1592/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1592/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sebco Property Private Limited Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Chennai-2. Vs. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025 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 (Central), Chennai-2 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 25-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: - 1. That The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai ["Ld. Pcit"] U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Barred By Limitation. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Thus The Ld. Pcit Erred In Initiating Revisionary Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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

Universal Drinks, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-42(1), New Delhi

ITA 2283/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

Investment Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT and anr. [2011] 333 ITR 146 and in the case of Avirat Stat Homes Venure (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2019] 102 taxmann.com 60 (Bombay). 10. Thus, in our considered opinion, A.O. was indeed having prima facie tangible material on record on the basis

Alok Kumar Jain, Pearl Pleasure vs. ACIT Cir-6, Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Rajasthan

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

ACIT/DCIT S. Legal Basis Argument in Brief P.B. Reference No R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer Best Buildwell ( P ) Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer [2022] 141 taxmann.com 558 ( Delhi ) 05. Notice u/s The CBDT notification No. 18/2022/F.No. 370142/16/2022- WS-21 148 is in TPL( Part 1 ) dated ... Processors vs Union of India [ 2023 ] 149 taxmann.com 29 ( Rajasthan ) R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer Best Buildwell ( P ) Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer [2022] 141 taxmann.com 558 ( Delhi ) Case Laws Relied upon by Department and its distinction with the case of Assessee-Appellant i. The Department relied

Mohammed Munim Prop. M.N. Enterprises, Ludhiana vs. Pr. C.I.T., Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 176/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate ) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT )- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 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

Gallagher Service Center LLP (Formerly Known As Gallagher Operations Support Services P Ltd), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the Ground Number 6 is Partly Allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 679/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gallagher Services Center V Additional/Joint Llp, S Commissioner Of Income 401, Delta 2, Gigaspace It Tax. Park, Vimannagar, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaqfg7417F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.P.Lohia – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Of Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 15.07.2022 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 253(1)(d)

against the order dated 15 July 2022 (received by the Appellant on 15 July 2022) passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'NFAC) under section 143(3) rws 144C(13) read with section

Shrenik Kumar Virchand Mardia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 558/Mum/2025 is allowed

ITA 558/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the date of hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri R.M. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SRDR)
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS PADMAVATHY S. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shrenik Kumar vs Income-tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(6), VirchandMardia, Mumbai, Ground Floor, 38, Champa Piramal chambers Galli, Kalbadevi, H.O. Mumbai- Dr S.S. Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

Appreciate your cooperation in the faceless e-assessment proceedings under E-Assessment Scheme, Yours faithfully, Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi E TAX DEPARTMENT Copy to: Assessee Yours faithfully, Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer ... said notice will attract Penalty u/s 271 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act. Yours faithfully. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vishesh B 2021.08.14 12:24:27 IST Page | 11 ITA No. 2844/Mum/2024

Ashokkumar Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 263Section 40

Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is 'erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue'. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power ... aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 526/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Same in case of Pankaj Kantilal Shah ITA 576/Mum/2022 order dated 16.06.2023. f. Mumbai Bench of ITAT in Smt. Hema Ramesh Jain vs. Income-tax Officer ITA No. 2966/Mum/2023 held in Para 10 of its order - 10. The AO has disbelieved the claim of the assessee only on the basis

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 525/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Same in case of Pankaj Kantilal Shah ITA 576/Mum/2022 order dated 16.06.2023. f. Mumbai Bench of ITAT in Smt. Hema Ramesh Jain vs. Income-tax Officer ITA No. 2966/Mum/2023 held in Para 10 of its order - 10. The AO has disbelieved the claim of the assessee only on the basis

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 524/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Same in case of Pankaj Kantilal Shah ITA 576/Mum/2022 order dated 16.06.2023. f. Mumbai Bench of ITAT in Smt. Hema Ramesh Jain vs. Income-tax Officer ITA No. 2966/Mum/2023 held in Para 10 of its order - 10. The AO has disbelieved the claim of the assessee only on the basis

Mehta Seema, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s instant appeal is allowed

ITA 4111/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Ao

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mehta Seema, Vs Income-tax Officer, 1089, Sector-7 Extn., Urban Estate, Ward-2(5), Gurgaon. Gurgaon-122001. PAN- BGUPS 0642 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Atal Puri, CA Department ... learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Gurgaon, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for assessment year