← 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

Pankaj Dahyabhai Shah, Palghar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Palghar

ITA 3622/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Acit, Aayakr Bhavan, Pankaj Dahyabhai Shah Bidco Road, Palghar Flat No. 103, Saraswati Apt – 401404. Kunti Part, Ambaji Road, Tal Palghar, Dist – 401404. Pan/Gir No. Adyps0893A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 250

CBDT instruction, jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment vested in Income- tax Officer and notice under section 143(2) must be issued by Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Haldia and none other - But, notice was issued by Asstt. Commissioner, Circle Haldia much after CBDT's instruction and knowing fully well that ... jurisdiction over assessee Whether, therefore, notice issued by Asstt. Commissioner was invalid and consequently assessment framed by Income-tax Officers becomes void since issue of notice under section 143(2) was not done by Income-tax Officers as specified in CBDT instruction No. 1/2011. 9.2. The Hon'ble High Court

Ashutosh Sharma, Gwalior vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gwalior

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 39/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 147Section 92

TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRABENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashutosh Sharma, Income-tax Officer, A-430, Balwant Nagar, v. Ward 3(1), Thatipur, Gwalior-474011 Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Madhya Pradesh Gwalior-474011, Madhya Pradesh PAN :GKYPS9337C (Appellant

Sudhir Bhardwaj, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 189/AGR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 271BSection 90Section 92

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRABENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Sudhir Bhardwaj Income-tax Officer, 72C, Shastri Nagar, Krishna v. Ward 1(3)(1), Nagar,Mathura-281004, U.P. Aayakar Bhawan, Radhika Vihar, NH-2, Mathura-281004, U.P. PAN :AJQPB3329Q

Chand Khan, Sada Shiv Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(2), City Center

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

ITA 109/AGR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Chand Khan, Income-tax Officer, Near Airtel Tower, v. Ward 1(2), Gwalior-474011, M.P. Lashkar, Gwalior-474001 (M.P.) PAN : AOEPK6885P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Satish Agarwal, Advocate Revenue

Kamlesh Narang, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Gwalior

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

ITA 104/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Kamlesh Narang, Income-tax Officer, House No. 8, v. Ward 1(3), Aayakar Bhawan Ratan Colony, City Center, Jiwajiganj, Lashkar, Gwalior-474001, M.P. Gwalior-474001 (M.P.) PAN :AAWPN0418P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee ... erred, both facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal field by the Appellant being aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Gwalior ("the AO") u/s 143(3) of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 3. That on the fact

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessment year 1971-72. This error was not relevant to the assessment year 1975- 76". In the case of Abdul Hamid v. Income-tax Officer [2020] 117 taxmann.com 986 (Gauhati - Trib.)it was held that only probability and likelihood to find error in assessment order is not permitted ... 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 in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power

Sourabh Kumar Soni, Ashoknagar (M.P) vs. ITO - Ashoknagar, Ashoknagar

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

ITA 71/AGR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 127Section 144Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sourabh Kumar Soni, Income-tax Officer, Ward No.1, Near FCI Gowdown, Ashoknagar-473331 Isagarh Road, v. Madhya Pradesh Durga Colony, Ashoknagar-473331 Madhya Pradesh. PAN :EIEPS0396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by S/Sh. Rajendra

DCIT Cent. Circle 1(3), Nagpur vs. Mor Alloys Private Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 18/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

confer such power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly provided whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under Section 133A, Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cent. Circle-1(3), Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Nagpur vs. Mor Alloys Private Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

confer such power to examine a person on oath, the same has been expressly provided whereas section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath. Thus, in contradistinction to the power under Section 133A, Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables ... argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the statement elicited during the survey operation has hol evidentiary value and the Income-tax Officer was well aware of this." This judgment in Paul Mathews (supra) was relied on by the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan

Development Foundation, Naya Rajwada vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 410/IND/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhadevelopment Foundation, Income-Tax Officer Naya Rajwada, Shiv Vilas Palace बनाम/ Cgo Complex, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactd1352N Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025

Section 12A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Development Foundation, Income-Tax Officer Naya Rajwada, Shiv Vilas Palace बनाम/ CGO Complex, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AACTD1352N Assessee by Shri Manoj Fadnis, CA & AR Revenue by Shri Ashish

Jankalyan Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit Asond, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2721/PUN/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2721/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jankalyan Gramin Bigarsheti V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, S Ratnagiri. Jankalyan Gramin Coop Soc A/Pasond, Tal-Dapoli, Dapoli, Ratnagiri – 415709. Pan: Aaatj8258P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Promod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Miss. Indira R Adkil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tas(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19; Dated 30.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Of Denying Deduction Under Section 80P In Respect Interest Earned By The

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

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

Pani Purvatha Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kolhapur, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2663/PUN/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2663/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pani Purvatha Karmachari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit S Kolhapur. Kolhapur, 431-E Tej Apartment, Basant – Bahar Road, Shahupuri, Kolhapur – 416001. Pan: Aaaap1588M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Harshit Dilip Bari – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 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] Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 21.11.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 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

Malegaon Mahanagar Palika Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer - 1 Malegaon, Malegaon, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2502/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 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

Puran K Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41 (2) (4 ), Mumbai

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

ITA 3800/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarpuran K Jain (Huf) Vs Income-Tax Officer, Wad-41(2)(4) 17/253, Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli Mumbai, (East), Mumbai-400 083 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Pan: Aajhp2523E Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Puran K Jain (HUF) vs Income-tax Officer, Wad-41(2)(4) 17/253, Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli Mumbai, (East), Mumbai-400 083 Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (East), PAN: AAJHP2523E Mumbai-400051 APPELLANT RESPONDENT

M/S. the Metropolitan Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 3716/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S. The Metropolitan Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(1), Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai, C.26/27, Block-E, The Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Metropolitan Prem.Co-Op. 400 012 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaaat8898E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Rupal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. the Metropolitan vs Income-tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(1), Premises Co-op Society Ltd, Mumbai, C.26/27, Block-E, The Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Metropolitan Prem.Co-op. 400 012 Bandra

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Sharad Nagnath Rajbhoj, Pune

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5661/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit, Central Circle – 6(1), Room No.445, 4Th Floor, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant Pan : Abapr6416N V/S Sharad Nagnath Rajbhoj, 502 Dsk Haiyali Phase-Ii, ……………… Respondent Modi Baug, Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411005 Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajshirke Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

basis of documents seized and statements recorded from the third party, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed as follows: – “The Income-tax Officer came across a sort of a ledger maintained by the firm known as Vasu Films of Madras containing certain entries, which had been seized ... returned in each of the three assessment years respectively. For drawing the inference that she must have received income without passing receipts the Income-tax Officer relied upon the two entries which appeared on one page of that ledger of Vasu Films, which read as follows: "20-9-1962 16/8

Gold Ancher Exim Private Limited, Khar West - Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Panjabi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE

Meher Nosherwan Jehangir, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6211/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemeher Nosherwan Jehangir Vs Income-Tax Officer, 4, Darbhanga Mansion, 12/A Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai Michael Road, Cumballa Hill S.O., Piramal Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai Pan : Aanpj4670J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: ShriAsif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Meher Nosherwan Jehangir vs Income-tax Officer, 4, Darbhanga Mansion, 12/a Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai Michael Road, Cumballa Hill S.O., Piramal chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai PAN : AANPJ4670J

Nayara Energy Limited (Formerly Known As Essar Oil Limited), Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai

ITA 2556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R

Chandrapal Singh, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer Shivpuri, Shipuri

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 115/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69

BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Mr. Chandrapal Singh, Income-tax Officer, 123, VishwaLaxmi Nagar, v. Shivpuri GoverdhanChauraha, Main Building Mathura-282502 (U.P.) Gwalior-474002, M.P. PAN : BXIPS2007K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by S/Sh. Rajendra Sharma &Majuj Sharma