← 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

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo moto 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, namely ... 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

New Leaf Homes Pvt Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 18(3), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2295/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 282

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 New Leaf Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, L-113, Lajpat Nagar, Ward-18(3), New Delhi. New Delhi-110024 PAN- AADCN 7291 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri M.R. Sahu

Sunil Sumermal Bhutoria HUF, Goregaon Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Bkc Bandra East

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Sumermal Bhutoria Huf Ito-31(3)940, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 224, Yugdharma, Link Road, Bandra East, Vs. Opp. Inorbit Mall, Goregaon Maharashtra West Maharashtra-400090. Pan: Aauhs 0957 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh JainFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, SR. DR
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the Income-tax Officer, Ward- 31(3)(4), Mumbai (‘the AO’) was partly allowed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with that order and is in appeal before us raising

Ashoka Garden Enclave Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, (1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3230/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Iyer, CAFor Respondent: Shri AnoopHiwase,Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(b)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.3230/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ashoka Garden Enclave Co- vs Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, operative Housing Society Bangaluru. / Income-tax Officer, Limited, Ward-41(2)(5), Mumbai, Godrej Garden Enclave Tower Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai No.1, Station Road, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai-400 079 PAN : AAAAA9016B

Shri Rampriya Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1946/HYD/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

directors und the company the resolution had a binding effect and the payment had to be legally made. But it is for the Income-tax Officer to decide whether the amount so paid to the directors was wholly and exclusively spent Jor the purpose of the business within the meaning ... existence of an agreement between the employer and the employee and the fact of actual payment, no discretion is left to the Income-tax Officer except to hold that the payment was made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. Although the payment might have been made

Abhijit Upadhyaya, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 4(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 288/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Abhijit Upadhyay, Income-Tax Officer, D.K. Cottage, H.No.36, 4(2), बनाम/ E8, Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abnpu6818J Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2024

Section 147Section 69

INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Abhijit Upadhyay, Income-tax Officer, D.K. Cottage, H.No.36, 4(2), बनाम/ E8, Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABNPU6818J Assessee by Shri S.S.Deshpande, CA Revenue

Anotra Realators Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT (Central)- 1, Chennai

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

Shri Gupta that the Tribunal was wrong in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. It is submitted by learned counsel that when the Income-tax Officer had failed to initiate proceedings under section 273 it had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and, therefore, the Commissioner ... case of Addl. CIT v. J. K. D'Costa [1982] 133 ITR 7. Proceedings for levy of penalty were not initiated by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner had, in that case, passed an order under section 263 of the Act and directed the Income-tax Officer to initiate

Ashok Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1394/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 26.12.2016. The impugned re-assessment order was passed by the Addl./Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2022. 2. This appeal by assessee is arising out of revision order passed

Rajiv Kumar Khurana, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 43/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. The Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit & Stated That Due To Acute Weakness & Prolonged Illness, Appeal Could Not Be Completed & Filed Within Time. When This Was Rajiv Kumar Khurana Vs. Ito Confronted With The Ld. Dr, He Did Not Raise Any Serious Objections For Condonation Of Delay. Hence, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For Adjudication.

Section 148Section 44A

light of the aforesaid discussion, the addition so made by the Assessing officer is hereby directed to be deleted." Mansukh K. Vaghasia v. Income-tax Officer, [2022] 139 taxmann.com 84 (Surat- Trib.) "14. In the light of the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, we note that assessee

Alka Singhai, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 287/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Alka Singhai, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.A-55, Bda Colony, Delhi बनाम/ Kohefiza, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acnps5162L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.08.2024

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)

INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Alka Singhai, Income-tax Officer, H.No.A-55, BDA Colony, Delhi बनाम/ Kohefiza, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ACNPS5162L Assessee by Shri S.S.Deshpande, CA Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar

Yogeshkumar Omprakash Agarwal, Borivali East vs. Ward 32(1)(7), Bkc Bandra

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

ITA 3428/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Rayirth Holding and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.3214/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3214/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Issued The Notice In The Wrong Email Account. The Appeal Order Is Passed Ex Parte & Upheld The Assessment Order. Being Aggrieved On The Appeal Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri AnoopHiwase, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

MUMBAI BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.3214/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rayirth Holding and Trading vs Income-tax Officer, Company Pvt Ltd, Ward 8(1)(1), Mumbai Room No.662A, 6th Floor, Aayakar 205, Welspun House, Kamala City,Senapati Bapat Marg, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve

Priyanka Om Prakash Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO 34 (3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2929/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: ShriRushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Yogendra T.Wakare (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 68

short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2015-16,date of order28.06.2023.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer – 25(3)(2), Mumbai, order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 13/12/2017. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds

Sadhna Agarwal, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 960/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sadhna Agarwal, Vs Income-tax Officer, SF-1, KH-70, Kavi Nagar, Ward-2(2)(4), Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201002. PAN- AKVPA 0788 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms. Vanshika Taneja

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Acore Consulting Pvt Ltd, Dlehi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1308/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Assistant Commissioner any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, except in the circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to make further enquiry ... direct the Income-tax Officer to make further enquiry and to report the result of the same to him. This position has been made clear by Sub-rule (4) which specifically provides that the restrictions placed on the production of additional evidence by the appellant would not affect the powers

M/S Jain Swetamber Society, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 759/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

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 assigning sufficient cause. 14. In the above judgment, Hon hie Court has held that filing of audit report

Malabar Cements Limited, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Palakkad

ITA 71/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnan Unny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250

phrase ‘actually allowed’ is thus limited to depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e., debited by the Income-tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee; it cannot be stretched to mean ‘notionally allowed’ or merely allowable ... section 43(6)(b) to mean – ‘limited for depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e., debited by the Income-tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee.” 6 ITA Nos.71& 255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited

M/S. R.K. Investments, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1159/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1159/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. R.K. Investments Dcit Ground Floor, Block-Iv, Non-Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ No.184-187,Temple Steps, Chennai. Vs. Anna Salai Little Mount, Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafr-3413-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(14)(lii)Section 263Section 45

support of its claim was liable to be quashed. 24. [2019] 110 taxmann.com 109 (Madras) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, Kumar Rajaram v. Income-tax Officer (International Taxation 2(1)), Chennai, Where a property belonging to assessee's father was sold as per his father's Will and assessee computed capital

Deen Dayal Medical and Educational Trust, Thiruvallur vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3331/CHNY/2016[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 12A

displace it. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court further held that, it is no denial of natural justice, if the Income-tax Officer refuses to produce an informant for being cross examined by the assessee. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement given

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2415/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

either in his own capacity or in his capacity as a member of the partnership. 17.3. In the case of Linklaters LLP Vs Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward 1(1)(2) Mumbai: [2010] 40 SOT 51 (MUM.), while examining the provisions contained in India-UK DTAA, it was held