“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

Rakesh Mulchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 6598/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Viz. 31/03/2017, Thereby The Notice U/S.148 & Consequential Reassessment Order Passed U/S.147 Is Bad In Law;

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

have examined the position in law in view of the submissions advanced. 8. 1. In the case of Prashant S. Joshi vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4): [2010] 324 ITR 154 (Bombay) [22/02/2010], cited on behalf of the Assessee, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Aadl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 801/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C

Appellant craves to prefer an appeal against order dated 28 February 2022 passed by the Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. AO'), under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) read with Section

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jubilant Enpro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrarakshit Estates Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hsiidc Limited. Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Plot No. 11, Basement, J 2.1, Udhyogvihar, Phase-V, Sector 83, Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aagcr0135G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ramesh Chander, Adv Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

deal with the objection raised by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had not called in question the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai within the stipulated time period of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice(s) u/ss.143 ... Circle-1, Bhilai vide notice issued u/s.143(2) dated 24.09.2013, which thereafter had culminated into an assessment framed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 30.03.2015 does not suffer from any infirmity. In our considered view the aforesaid contention

Winsome Textile Industries Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

aggregate works out to Rs. 78 lakhs. 8. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, relied on the decisions in Income-Tax Officer v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 and ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 to urge that

M/S. Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

your Appellant also submits that the order of CIT(A) is not maintainable and requires to be set aside since the order of Income-tax Officer levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is not maintainable since the Show Cause Notice issued by him prior to levy of Penalty was vague capable

Virtue Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-22(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6253/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Ms. Ramma Priya, CIT-DR

Section 250

16A/16B, 2nd floor, Raghuvanshi Mansion, Raghuvansi Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013. ……………. Appellant PAN NO. AAGFV 5858 D v/s Income-tax Officer-22(3)(5), Room No. 321, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400012. Assessee by : Mr. Narayan Atal Revenue by : Ms. Ramma Priya

Siemens Mobility Gmbh, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax), 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

reads as under :— "The main argument which is urged by Mr. Nambiar in support of this appeal is that respondent No. 1, the Income-tax Officer, who has issued the impugned notice, has no jurisdiction to assess the appellant for the income in question, because he contends that even according ... escape taxation altogether. In other words, the respondent's case clearly is that the notices issued against the two brothers by their respective Income-tax Officers are intended to determine who is responsible to pay tax for the income in question; now though Mr. Nambiar wanted to argue that protective

Challenge Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Noida

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s M.M. Construction, Vs Income-tax Officer-1(1), C-81, Ashiyana colony, Kanth Road, Moradabad. Moradabad. PAN: AAIFM 1910 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income-tax Officer

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru' V.C.)

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271A

Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained, and the business income ... decided in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). Whether in a given case the Income-tax Officer may tax the cash credit entered in the books of account of the business, and at the same time estimate the profit must, however, depend

Graphtech Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68

support of our view from the decision of our High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia vs Income-tax Officer [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan) “wherein it was held that no addition could be made in respect of the amount standing in the books

Mr. Jobanji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO. Ward-3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 264/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.264/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Jobanji Thakor The Ito F-40, Abugiri Society बनाम / Ward-3(2)(2) Tal. Daskroi, Jagatpur V/S. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad - 382 470 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aknpt 2930 M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018, Confirming The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

placed reliance on judicial precedents, particularly the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi vs. Income-tax Officer, where the ITAT Pune had allowed the exemption under Section 54B in a similar case. The assessee argued that the present case was identical ... assessee reiterated reliance on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, in the case of Laxminarayan vs. Income-tax Officer, where it was held that the objective of Section 54B of the Act is to encourage reinvestment in agricultural lands. The assessee argued that since

Kolsa Khadan Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Sillewada Project, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 11/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

genuineness of the transactions to the satisfaction of the AO, thereby ignoring the Apex Court decision in the case Pavankumar M. Sanghavi Vs. Income-tax Officer (Special leave to appeal (C) No(s) 10250 of 2018 and NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018) dated

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature." In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

clear that the pre-requisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions ... erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue recourse cannot

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 640/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

taxmann.com 249 (Delhi Trib.); ➤ CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 360 ITR 532 (Delhi); ➤ Tapi JWil JV v. Income-tax Officer (2024) 158 taxmann.com 433 (Delhi Trib.); ➤ Apace Realty v. Income-tax Officer (2022) 140 taxmann.com 257 (Mum); ➤ DCIT v. Francois Compressors India

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 639/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Best Oasis Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhay Thakur, CIT.DR & Shri B

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 9(1)(i)Section 92(3)Section 92CSection 92D