← 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

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Aligarh vs. ITO., Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Vishal Income-tax Officer, Cinema Road, Padav Bazar, Ward 4(2)(5), Mainpuri. Karhal, Mainpuri(UP)-205264. v. C/o M/s. Sanjeev K Gupta & Co., 2/327A, Niranjanpuri, Near 3 Dots

Ajit Kumar, Narkatiaganj vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bettiah

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 222/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 91(2)Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

के समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 222/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ajit Kumar Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Bettiah Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: BNUPK8087 Appearances: Assessee represented by : G.P. Tulsiyan, FCA. Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT. Date ... Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Shri Ajit Kumar, Ward No. 02, Purani Bazar, Narkatiaganj, Narkatiaganj S.O., West Champaran, Bihar - 845455 2. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Bettiah. 3. CIT(A)-Patna-3 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Bench, Patna. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Monika Rathore, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Morena

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

ITA 290/AGR/2024[MONIKA RATHORE]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

TRIBUNAL, AGRABENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2023-24 Monika Rathore, Suman Kunj, Income-tax Officer, Behind Pitambra Dharam Kanta, v. Ward-1, Morena, Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh Residency, S.O. GWL DISLARI, Gwalior-474005(M.P.). PAN :ESEPR4702Q (Appellant

Aparna Dhingra, Gwalior vs. ITO 3(1), Gwalior

ITA 257/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.257/Agr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aparna Dhingra, Govindpuri, University Road, Gwalior. C-74, Vs. Ward 3(1), Gwalior. Income-tax Officer, PAN: AAVPD5470C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Department by Sh. Alok Dhingra, Advocate Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing Date of pronouncement

Siyaram Preservation Private Limited, Mainpuri vs. Ward 4(2)(5), Mainpuri

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, subject to all just exceptions

ITA 251/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Siyaram Preservation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Muhll Kabirganj Bhong, Ward 2(2)(5), Mainpuri. Mainpuri. Pan : Aaqcs3018R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)

AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Siyaram Preservation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-tax Officer, Muhll Kabirganj Bhong, Ward 2(2)(5), Mainpuri. Mainpuri. PAN : AAQCS3018R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date

Sh.Achal Singh S/O Sh Kandra Singh, Agra vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(2), Agra

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, subject to all just exceptions

ITA 23/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Achal Singh S/O Kandra Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Singh, Bichpuri, Agra. Ward 1(2)(2), Agra. Pan : Hdtps1813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Advocate Department By Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 92

BEFORE : SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Achal Singh S/o Kandra Vs. Income-tax Officer, Singh, Bichpuri, Agra. Ward 1(2)(2), Agra. PAN : HDTPS1813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava

Adonis Marketing (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1769/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

return already filed should have been terminated." ".... A mere glance at this note would show that it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer gave finality to the refund since no refund is granted either in the hands of the trust or in the hands of the beneficiaries ... inconclusive note where the Income-tax Officer left the matter at the stage of consideration even with regard to refund in the hands of the beneficiaries. This note was also not communicated to the trustees. When we examine the note dated November 10, 1965, on the file

Mrs Neelam Vijay Dand, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6533/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. G.C. LalkaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Pande, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

Neelam Vijay Dand, T-3, 2501 Rosewood, Runwal Green, Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Bhandup (West) Mumbai-400078. ……………. Appellant PAN: AAHPD 7269 F v/s Income-tax Officer WD. 29(2)(4), R. No. 205, 2nd floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C- 43, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ……………. Respondent

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4838/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeaxis Enterprises, Mumbai Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 102, 1St Floor Pals, 1St Road Appeals, Delhi T.P.S Iv, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aaafa9003D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Tisha BaghFor Respondent: ShriRam Krishna Kedia(SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 92

brevity, ‘the Act’), date of order 02/11/2023 for A.Y. 2018-19. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbaipassed under section 154 read with section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 22/02/2023. 2 Axis Enterprises

Deepali Shankar Suryawanshi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 28(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 3630/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandeepali Shankar Suryawanshi Vs Income-Tax Officer-28(1)(1) Shop No.6, Vimla Plaza Chs, Vashi Railway Station Building, Plot No.16, Sector-5, Ghansoli Navi Mumbai Maharashtra-400 701 Pan : Dimps1104L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha
Section 2Section 250Section 250(2)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deepali Shankar Suryawanshi vs Income-tax Officer-28(1)(1) Shop No.6, VIMLA PLAZA CHS, Vashi Railway Station Building, Plot No.16, Sector-5, Ghansoli Navi Mumbai Maharashtra-400 701 PAN : DIMPS1104L ... heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a);xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b)the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).], either in person or by a representative. 6. The observation of the Ld.C IT(A) at paras 6.1 and para

Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Gondia, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Gondia

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 263/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)

Income from other sources are not liable for the said deduction as held in case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (SC) (2010)188 Taxman 282 wherein the Apex Court held that interest income from deposits with banks cannot be held to income from business

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Mohammad Osman Mohammaf Haroonmotiwala, Auranganbad vs. PCIT- Nashik 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer] [Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).], satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. During the assessment

Srinivas Shah Radraraju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 68

merit and unsustainable. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 10 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors 236 ITR 34, (1999) had an occasion to consider the validity of reopening of the assessment and held that in determining whether

Shree Sree Balananda Trust, Deoghar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 16/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshree Sree Balananda Trust, I.T.O., Sri Sri Balananda Ashram, Karinabad, Exemption Ward, Vs. Deoghar, Dist.- Deoghar, Dhanbad. Jharkhand-841112 Pan No. Aabts 0579 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154

Income- tax Act, 1961, it was held as under (page 98): The said clause clearly provides that the Income-tax Officer can make an adjustment to the income or loss declared in the return if, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, the deduction ... claim of the assessee is inadmissible must, in other words, flow from the return as filed. No power is given to the Income-tax Officer to disallow a claim for the reason that there is no proof in support of the claim made by the assessee

Ivy Comptech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Ivy Competech Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaac18884K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nageswara Rao, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

receipt' by the recipient i.e., the assessing officer on the same day 13 i.e., 30.06.2022. (See paragraph No.26.7 of Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income-tax Officer 11, where the Delhi (2022) 449 ITR 517 High Court poignantly held that the portal of the department is the 'computer resource

ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Jagshibhai Visaria, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 4082/MUM/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025

Bench: Itat By The Cbdt, Vide Its Circular No.5/2024 Dated 15/03/2024 As Mended By Circular No. F.No.279/Misc/142/2007-Itj(Pg) Dated 15/03/2024. But The Ld.Dr Stated That The Assessee’S Case Falls Under The Exception Provided In Paragraph 3.1(H) Of The Above Circular, Wherein It Is Stated That In Case Involving Organized Tax Evasion Including The Case Of Accommodation Entry Of Bogus Purchases, The Decision Of That Appeal Shall Be Taken On Merit Without Having Rigor To Tax Effect & The Monetary Effect. The Ld.Ar Has Not Made Any Objection. So Accordingly, Both The Appeals Are Taken For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI AMARJITSINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2009-10 Income-tax Officer, vs Mr. Deepak JagshibhaiVisaria Primal Chamber, 501, 5th Floor, Room No.11,2ndFloor, 61, Doctor Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Niwas, Banganga Road, Mumbai-400 012 Walkeshwar ... Assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12, both dated18/06/2024. The impugned orders were emanated from the orders of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(4), Mumbai (in brevity, ‘the AO’), passed under section 143(3) of the Act,1961, date of orders 04/03/2015. 2. Both the appeals have

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai vs. Deepak Jagshibhai Visaria, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

ITA 4077/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Itat By The Cbdt, Vide Its Circular No.5/2024 Dated 15/03/2024 As Mended By Circular No. F.No.279/Misc/142/2007-Itj(Pg) Dated 15/03/2024. But The Ld.Dr Stated That The Assessee’S Case Falls Under The Exception Provided In Paragraph 3.1(H) Of The Above Circular, Wherein It Is Stated That In Case Involving Organized Tax Evasion Including The Case Of Accommodation Entry Of Bogus Purchases, The Decision Of That Appeal Shall Be Taken On Merit Without Having Rigor To Tax Effect & The Monetary Effect. The Ld.Ar Has Not Made Any Objection. So Accordingly, Both The Appeals Are Taken For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI AMARJITSINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER - A.Y. 2011-12 - A.Y. 2009-10 Income-tax Officer, vs Mr. Deepak JagshibhaiVisaria Primal Chamber, 501, 5th Floor, Room No.11,2ndFloor, 61, Doctor Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Niwas, Banganga Road, Mumbai-400 012 Walkeshwar ... Assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12, both dated18/06/2024. The impugned orders were emanated from the orders of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(4), Mumbai (in brevity, ‘the AO’), passed under section 143(3) of the Act,1961, date of orders 04/03/2015. 2. Both the appeals have

Sonal Jain, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(2), Agra

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, subject to all just exceptions

ITA 275/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Sonal Jain, 3/19, C/2, Sita Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Kunj, Behind Civil Court, Civil Ward 1(1)(2), Agra. Lines, Agra. Pan : Agwpj7406K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department By Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr)

Section 147

SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Sonal Jain, 3/19, C/2, Sita Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kunj, Behind Civil Court, Civil Ward 1(1)(2), Agra. Lines, Agra. PAN : AGWPJ7406K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department

ACIT 16.3, Mumbai vs. New Growth Comtrade Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 870/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059377021(1), dated 04.01.2024 passed against the assessment order by Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 16(3)(2), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 28.12.2017 for Assessment Year