← 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

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

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

ITA 647/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR
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

Defsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 758/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 153ASection 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

assessee, the calculation of the net tax payable is a process which is mostly arithmetical but generally time-consuming. If, therefore, the Income-tax Officer first draws up an order assessing the total income and, indicating the adjustments to be made, directs the office to compute © Company Law Institute ... fault can be found with the process, though it is only when both the computation sheets are signed or initialled by the Income-tax Officer that the process described in section 143(3) will be complete." In our opinion, this decision, far from helping the Revenue, goes against

Akshendra Kumar Bhanu, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Meerut

ITA 2928/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 44A

DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Akshendra Kumar Bhanu, Vs Income-tax Officer, C/o M/s Kartar Singh & Co., Ward-1(1)(1), Meerut. 86, Bank Street, Meerut Cantt. PAN- AIMPB5559K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri R.P. Narang, Adv. Assessee represented

Sagar Babanrao Awatade, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel

Appeal is allowed

ITA 79/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Goyal &For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

formation of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence, the powers of the income-tax Officer to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary the words of statute are "reason to believe" and not ”reason to suspect”. It is therefore essential that

Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 251/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. N.Swapna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') by Additional Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi ("Ld. AO"), as provided below, each of the grounds is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent

Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/HYD/2023[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nellore. Central Circle – 1, Nellore. Pan : Agupk4977A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assesseefor

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

case of C. Vasantlal and Company v. CIT 1962 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT / [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC} held as under: - "The Income-tax Office* is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even ... informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it The statements made by Achaldas and Poonamchand before the Income-tax Officer were material on which the income-tax authorities could act provided that the material was disclosed and the assessees had opportunity to render their

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

case of C. Vasantlal and Company v. CIT 1962 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT / [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC} held as under: - "The Income-tax Office* is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even ... informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it The statements made by Achaldas and Poonamchand before the Income-tax Officer were material on which the income-tax authorities could act provided that the material was disclosed and the assessees had opportunity to render their

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

case of C. Vasantlal and Company v. CIT 1962 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT / [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC} held as under: - "The Income-tax Office* is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even ... informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it The statements made by Achaldas and Poonamchand before the Income-tax Officer were material on which the income-tax authorities could act provided that the material was disclosed and the assessees had opportunity to render their

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

case of C. Vasantlal and Company v. CIT 1962 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT / [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC} held as under: - "The Income-tax Office* is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even ... informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it The statements made by Achaldas and Poonamchand before the Income-tax Officer were material on which the income-tax authorities could act provided that the material was disclosed and the assessees had opportunity to render their

Sureshchandra Seksaria HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

filed by the assessee/appellant on 23.07.2012 declaring total income of %.1,35,800/-. Subsequently, information was received by the Assessing Officer from Income-tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(4), Surat that the assessee made transactions with Shri. Anil Chokara [Proprietor of M/s. Keshav Impex], during the previous year relevant

Pandit Nathu Ram Gaur Charitable Trust, Khondli Krishna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, 2(4), Civic Centre

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pandit Nathu Ram Gaur Charitable Vs Income-tax Officer (Exemption), Trust, 169, Khondli, Krishna Nagar, 2(4), New Delhi. Delhi-110051. PAN- AABTP1621K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA & Shri

Preeti Bhardwaj, K vs. ITO Ward 29(3), Civic Centre

Appeal are allowed

ITA 78/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 120Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Preeti Bhardwaj, K- Vs Income-tax Officer, 74A, Hauz Khas, Ward-29(3), Noida. Delhi-110016. PAN- AAGPB1362C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA; & Shri Satyajeet Goel

Kripal, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Noida

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kripal, Vs Income-tax Officer, Vill. Behlolpur, Tehsil-Dadri, Ward-2(1), Delhi. Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201301. PAN- EVKPK8056F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri

Nidhi Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44 (7), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)Section 6

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nidhi Garg, Vs Income-tax Officer, M-10, Guru Harkrishan Nagar, Ward-44(7), New Delhi New Delhi-110087. PAN- DDEPS4710M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Department

Rajat Commercial Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 30/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 7

18th November, 2019 rejecting Petitioner's objection to reopening on various grounds. 2. The primary ground that has been raised is that the Income-tax Officer who issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, had no jurisdiction to issue such notice. According to Petitioner as per instruction

Anita Chauhan, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 700/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Anita Chauhan, Vs Income-tax Officer, Flay No. 310, Emerald My Home Jewel, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad. Modinaguda, Tirumalagiri, Telangana-500094 PAN- AHBPC5910D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Naveen Garg

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Prcit, Karnal

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1985/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 263

DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir Sagwal, Vs Income-tax Officer, C/o Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv., Ward-4, Karnal. 527, Sector-10D, Chandigarh, Chandigarh. PAN- BDOPS3759N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Shri Tej Mohan Singh

Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Income-Tax Officer, 45, Jay Nagar Society, Ward-6(1)(1), B/H. Sardar Patel Hospital, Ahmedabad Rambaug, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 Pan : Abopm 4792 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ars Revenue By : Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 03.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.29,55,000/- Being Cash Deposited In The Bank Account Under Section 69A Inasmuch As The Cash Deposited Is Out Of Cash On Hand [Which Is Out Of Cash Sales & Cash Withdrawn] From The Business & That The Entire Amount Is From Explained Sources.” Rajesh Hariram Mohta Vs. Ito Ay : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Income-tax Officer, 45, Jay Nagar Society, Ward-6(1)(1), B/h. Sardar Patel Hospital, Ahmedabad Rambaug, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 PAN : ABOPM 4792 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ