← 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

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. Addl. CIT-Range-3, Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

without recording any satisfaction is not valid and liable to be quashed. He has also relied upon following decisions: (i)Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 (All.) (ii)Jagdish Chandra Suwalka vs JCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) JCIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

without recording any satisfaction is not valid and liable to be quashed. He has also relied upon following decisions: (i)Mohd. Atiq vs Income-Tax Officer, 46 ITR 452 (All.) (ii)Jagdish Chandra Suwalka vs JCIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) JCIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore

Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani, Mumbai vs. 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 204/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ridhisha Jain
Section 10(38)Section 68

case of M/s 08 in the case of M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer has held as tax Officer has held as follows:- "2. "2. "2. The The The appeal appeal appeal was was was filed filed filed

Yusuf Meherally Centre, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem), Ward-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 108/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriDr. Kishore Dhule CITDR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 09.11.2023.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income-tax Officer (Exem), Ward 2(4),Mumbai (in short, ‘the A.O.’) passed under section 143(3)of the Act date of order30/12/2018. 2. The assesseehas taken

Shaily Prince Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

ITA 4271/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Dr. K Shivaram Sr. Advocate & Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar SR AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Prince Goyal, Flat No.10, Block No.77, Prabha Building, R.B. Mehta Marg, 60 Feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400 077 PAN: AEDPG5633E APPELLANT VS Income-tax Officer-27(3)(3), Mumbai, Tower No.6, 4th Floor, Room No.426, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 RESPONDENT Assessee ... short, ‘the Act'), date of order 19.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2013-14.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Id. Income-tax Officer, Ward-27(3)(3), Mumbai(in short, 'the A.O.') passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act date of order26/12/2017. 2. The assessee

Ram Kishore Aggarwal, Jangpura Extension vs. ITO - 63(1), Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2718/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Kishore Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Aggarwal, IPSO Legal, Ward-63(1), 11-35 Ist Floor, Jangpura Delhi Extension, New Delhi PIN: 1100 14 PAN: ADRPA1451B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajiv

Mahesh D.Tekchandani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Mahesh Tekchandani, Income-Tax Officer, 67, Shivalik Bungalows, Ward-3(3)(3), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aespt 5350 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.1 The Order Passed By U/S.250 Passed On 20.10.2023 By Cit(A)-Nfac Delhi Upholding The Addition Of Rs.28,72,000/- Made By A.O. Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The First Payment By Cheque Was Made On 03.02.2014 & The Final Purchase Deed Was Executed In Fy 2018-19. But No Evidence Pointed Out By Ao To Prove That The Alleged Cash Payment Was Made During The Previous Year Relevant To A.Y. 2012-13. 2 Mahesh D. Tekchandani Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Mahesh Tekchandani, Income-Tax Officer, 67, Shivalik Bungalows, Ward-3(3)(3), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad PAN : AESPT 5350 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent

Sadhu Ram Balani, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Sadhu Ram Balani, Ito-5(1) Flat No. B-503, Indore. Moti Mahal Apartment, बनाम/ 28-A, Sector-C, Vs. Scheme No. 71, Indore. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

made up by subsequent compliance. To support his stand, Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Nagpur in Sabir Hussain Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhilai 25 ITC 184 holding thus: “In the case of non-compliance of the first, second and third notices, the AO could have

Malini Balasubramanian, Chidambaram vs. ITO, Ward-3, Cuddalore

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

ITA 648/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.648/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Smt. Malini Balasubramanian, The Income Tax Officer, No.61, East Car Street, Ward-3, Chidambaram-608 002. Cuddalore.

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee?" 4. In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question

Mohammad Akram, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 244/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri Mohammad Akram, The Income Tax Officer, No.3200/36B, Main Road, Ward-2(1), Thalavadi, Erode. Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode-638 461. [Pan: Bllpm 6172 N]

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 144

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority ... case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee?" 4. In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Kalyan vs. Geeta Khare, Dombivli West

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4520/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The appellant craves to leave add, amend or alter or alter any ground/grounds which may be necessary." 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) and addition was made related to sale of shares for claiming Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs.2,26,36,372/-. The addition was confirmed as concealed income amount to Rs.2,26,36,372/-. The penalty was levied at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which amount to R

For Appellant: Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal - AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar SR. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFO SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 4520/Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15) Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(1) vs Geeta Khare, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Dombivali West 4th Floor Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan West- 421 301 Mahatma Phule Road, Dombivli

Swaranjit Singh Putiani, Sunder Nagar Kalina Santacurz vs. ITO 22(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3838/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the CIT(A) with the grounds that there is no mens rea in concealed income. But Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order and dismissed the grounds of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. The Ld.AR agitated the legal issue before the Bench related to defective notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Copy of the notice is duly annexed herewith:- ITBA

For Appellant: Shri Vishesh Srivastav – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar SR.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFO SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Brett Lee, Australia vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 867/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 3

this context he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. Income-tax Officer (2022) 143 taxmann.com 11(Delhi). 3.4 The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has not raised this particular issue before learned DRP. Without prejudice

Takenaka India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD) Circle-25(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Case Law Compendium) DCIT vs. Calance Software Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 5023/Del/2012) (Refer to Page No. 4 of the Case Law Compendium) Income-tax Officer-9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intertoll ICS India (P.) Ltd [2016] 71 taxmann.com 353 (Mumbai - Trib.) vi. Under similar facts and circumstances CUP method was accepted

Tulshi Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, WD-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

belief. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because ... true that the court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income-tax Officer on the' point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment. At the same time we have to bear in mind that

Active Education and Welfare Society, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer, 1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 52/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Active Education & Income-Tax Officer, Welfare Society, 1(1), E-452, Bda Colony, Bhopal Near Regalia Heights, बनाम/ Ekta Park, Vs. Koh-E-Fiza, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aalca2887R Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2024

Section 144

INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Active Education and Income-tax Officer, Welfare Society, 1(1), E-452, BDA Colony, Bhopal Near Regalia Heights, बनाम/ Ekta Park, Vs. Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AALCA2887R

Sn Commodites, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 455/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 S.N.Commodities, Income-Tax Officer, 27, Ganesh Bhawan, 4(1), बनाम/ Jawahar Marg, Indore Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Absfs9264M Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2024

Section 147Section 250(6)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2011-12 S.N.Commodities, Income-tax Officer, 27, Ganesh Bhawan, 4(1), बनाम/ Jawahar Marg, Indore Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ABSFS9264M Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, AR Revenue by Shri

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

satisfactorily explained by the assessee. All the other transactions, except the cash transaction, which were verifiable, have been verified and scrutinised by the Income-tax Officer and there is nothing wrong whatsoever found with them. As to the cash transactions also, the quantity of sugar sold has not been disputed ... Tribunal, therefore, was not right, in our opinion, in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring that of the Income-tax Officer. There are no circumstances disclosed in the case nor is there any evidence or material on record which would justify the rejection

Quantum Advisors Esop Trust, Mumbai vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 4548/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm The Income-Tax Officer Quantum Advisors Esop Trust (Exemptions) 6Th Floor, Hoechst House The Income-Tax Officer Vs. Nariman Point, (Exemptions), Ward, 2(4), Mumbai-400 021 Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatq0156D

For Appellant: Mr. Ninad A Patade, AR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM The Income-tax Officer Quantum Advisors ESOP Trust (Exemptions) 6th Floor, Hoechst House The Income-tax Officer Vs. Nariman Point, (Exemptions), Ward, 2(4), Mumbai-400 021 Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel

Ajay Singh Chhabbra, Rampur Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 904/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajay Singh Chhabbra, Vs Income-tax Officer, H. No. 57, Adarsh Colony, Civil Line, Rampur. Rampur-244901. PAN- ANFPC 7048 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT None Assessee represented by Department represented by Shri