“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

Ada Atham Darji Pragati Mandal, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2684/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2020-21 Ada Atham Darji Pragati Deputy Director Of Mandal, Income Tax, Cpc, A2 Anand Nagar, Forjett Bengaluru, Street, Vs. Mumbai 400036 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaata 5671P Assessee By Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Senior (Dr) 18Th July, 2024 Date Of Hearing 08Th October, 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

furnishing the same, and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by showing a sufficient cause. This decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court has been relied on by the Tribunal

Sandeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mudra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 90

returns for 15 Sanddep Jain vs. DCIT the said two assessment years were filed beyond the period prescribed for making assessment, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and at the request of the petitioners treated the returns which were earlier filed as returns filed ... concerned, such full and true disclosure has to be 16 Sanddep Jain vs. DCIT made prior to the detection by the Income-tax Officer of concealment of particulars of income or of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of such income. Such disclosure could also be by a revised

Shankar Traders & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 199/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shankar Traders & Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aaykar Bhawan, A-Block, 1St Floor, Mercantile P-7, Chowringhee Square, Building, 9, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, [Pan: Aadcs8907L] West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 68

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 sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Shankar Traders

Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

assessee. Where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and the nature of certain amount of credit during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature. This view was adopted in the case of A. Govindarajulu

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

Income-tax liability of the applicant company get extinguished or cease to exist without any notice of such insolvency proceedings to the concerned Income-tax Officer or to say without participation and consideration of the statutory liabilities of the applicant/assessee company in the insolvency resolution plan. Though in other appeals ... Further, the Coordinate Bench ‘C’ of the Tribunal in the ITAT KOLKATA in the case of Kohinoor Steel (P.) Ltd. V. Income-tax Officer [2024] 159 taxmann.com 571 (Kolkata – Trib.) have also held as under: ■ It was observed that the operational creditor of assessee has filed the petition before

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024

For Appellant: Shri Tanju Agarwal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR

Section 69

authorise any Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, or (B) such Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, or Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Assistant Director ... Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, (the officer so authorised in all cases being hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) to— (i) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

facts of this case. The appellant relied upon the decision of THE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'B' in the case Rangnathappa Govindappa Zharkhande V Income-tax Officer of [2022] 144 taxmann.com 152 (Pune - Trib.). On reading this judgement it is noted that in that case it was noted by the ITAT ... under:- “(7A) Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner 31[or Deputy Commissioner] 32[or Assistant Director] 31[or Deputy Director] or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Ayakar Bhawan Churchgate vs. Varsha Corporation Limited, Malad (West)

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

ITA 348/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyalito, R. No. 227, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400 020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Varsha Corporation Ltd. 13, Adarsh Society, Varsha Ramachandra Lane Extn. Malad (West), Mumbai- 400 064. Pan No.Aabcv2293E ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajora, Ld.AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

these ingredients which have to be satisfied by the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough. The enquiry of the Income-tax Officer revealed that either the assessee was not traceable or there was no such file and, accordingly, the first ingredient as to the identity ... transactions were through the bank account, accordingly, it is to be presumed that the transactions were genuine. It was not for the Income-tax Officer to find out by making investigation from the bank accounts unless the assessee proves the identity of the creditors and their creditworthiness. Mere payment

M/S Swastik Construction, Thane vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4818/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah a/w Shri Kunal ShahFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. MakwanaSr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

case and in law, the honourable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore erred in confirming the action of the learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Thane of reopening of the assessment under section 147. 2. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S.69A 1. The learned Commissioner of Income

Tirupati Jewels, Kailash Colonny New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 30(6), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Tirupati Jewels Vs Ito Tirupati Jewels K-12, Kailash Ward- 30 (6) Colony New Delhi-110048, Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aajft4161A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

Section 124, though limited in scope, would also be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Noida had the power to assess income accruing or arising within the area as it is not the case of the petitioner-assessee ... jurisdiction of assessing officer in the present case cannot be equated with lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They relate to place of assessment. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Noida would not per se lack jurisdiction, albeit he had concurrent jurisdiction with the Income-Tax Officer Ward

ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vs. Maa Raktdantika Contractors and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 437/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 28(2)(i)Section 68

Taking into consideration the entire circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot

M/S. Maa Rakltdantika Contractors and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Range-4, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 28(2)(i)Section 68

M/S Multitech Solutions, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. -31, Kolkata

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

ITA 1443/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Additional CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

aforesaid industry standards or any other relevant study material for the same provisioning methods. In case of Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer; the Hon'ble Division Bench of High court of Madras held at paragraph 18 that the provision for service charges payable by the assessee

Philips Foods India Private Limited, Tuticorin vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

ITA 640/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 640/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Philips Foods India Private Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. C-75 / 76, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Madathoor, Tuticorin - 628008 [Pan: Aabcp7916Q] Madurai-1 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Ashik Sha, Ca, Mr.Vinay Jain Ca, Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051684572(1) Dated 30.03.2023 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Pcit" For The

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Sha, CA

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

India.; A. Y.2016-17 Reliance is placed on the following case laws while disposing of the objections: - 1. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer 236 ITR 34 wherein it has been stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where there is prima facie some material is available ... stage of finding out whether the reassessment notice is valid is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to believe and not whether the omission/ failure and the escapement of income is established. 4. It was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High court

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

signed is established by the judgment of this Court in Kalyankumar Ray vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 191 I.T.R.634.It said: ** "If, therefore, the Income-tax Officer first draws up an order assessing the adjustments to be made, directs the office to compute the tax payable on that basis and then ... complete. ** ** .....All these decisions emphasis that all that is needed is that there must be some writing initialled or signed by the Income-tax Officer before the period of limitation prescribed for completion of the assessment has expired in which the tax payable is determined and not that the form

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., Delhi

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

M/S. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

ITA 128/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263

recovered in the course of a raid by the Intelligence Wing of the Sales Tax Department, it is rather too late for the Income-tax Officer to turn round and reject the explanation of the assessee which was accepted by the sales tax appellate authority as regards the arrival ... reopening of the proceedings under Section 143/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ending in the order dated March 28, 1988, of the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Trivandrum, as confirmed by the first appellate authority and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal would be sustainable ?" 31. Our answer in regard

M/S. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

ITA 127/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263