← 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

G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1171/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1171/Chandi/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 G.J. Holding Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Ludhiana C/O G.S. Auto International Limited, G.S. Estate, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacg6664K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.As राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.07.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana[Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following 2. Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Goel & Sunil Arora, C.AsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

that inspection of assessee 's colliery showed, thattmere vas under-reporting of raising figures to the extent indicated in theletter, Held: The Income-tax Officer could form a belief on the basis ofthe letter that income had been under-assessed or had escaped assessment. Hence the notice issued under section

Jayanta Kumar Sardar, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Durgapur.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1251/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Durgapur (in brevity the ‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.06.2019. 2. The assessee has taken the following

Asif Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-32(3), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1048/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

impugned order was emanated from 2 I.T.A. No. 1048/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Asif Khan the order of the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32(3), Kolkata (in brevity the ‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 17.12.2019. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds

Sankalp Sakh Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Mandsaur vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

disallowed and brought to tax. The above may be furnished on or before 29.12.2020. Yours faithfully, Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi 4. Thus, it is clear that the AO has conducted specific inquiry on this issue of allowability of deduction

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

ITA 1355/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

order of the Commissioner of income-tax conferring the concurrent jurisdiction to the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax over the cases of the Income-tax Officer is either available on assessment record, or was produced before us by the Revenue. Thus, in absence of any such order ... under: “2(7A) Assessing Officers (7A) "Assessing Officer" means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director 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

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue stands dismissed

ITA 1354/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 124Section 2

means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Page 15 of 23 ITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016 Director 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

Dilip B. Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-II, Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 355/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Ved
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271A

which is as under: *means the [Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director 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 120 or any other

Dilip B. Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-II, Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 354/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pavan VedFor Respondent: Shri Ankush kappor (DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Nikunj Kaushik Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 2919/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalnikunj Kaushik Shah, 201, Laxmi Palace Chsl, Vileparle (East), Mumbai- 400057, Pan: Apeps6446R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-32(1), R. No. 335, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kothari, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Taxes and Board’s Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, Dated: 11-04-1955 reproduced as under: “Administrative instructions for guidance of Income-tax Officers on matters pertaining to assessment 1. The Board have issued instructions from time to time in regard to the attitude which the Officers ... affecting their interests and convenience. It appears that these instructions are not being uniformly followed. 2. Complaints are still being received that while Income-tax Officers are prompt in making assessments likely to result into demands and in effecting their recovery, they are lethargic and indifferent in granting refunds

Smt.Renuka Jana, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 991/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-27(2), Haldia (in brevity the ‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2019. 2. The assessee has taken the following

Chawala Enterpries, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 2610/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69A

DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chawala Enterprises, Vs Income-tax Officer, 189, Nandan Garden, Ward 1(2)(4), Meerut. W.K. Road, Meerut-250001. PAN- AABFC6542J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. Vivek Kumar

M/S.Hdb Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

Page No 21 M/s. HDB Financial Services Ltd. . vs. PCIT merely to repay original loan and this fact was proved to satisfaction of Income-tax Officer, interest paid on second loan would also be allowed as a deduction Whether view of Assessing Officer being plausible, it was not open ... Revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. When two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests

Panexcell Clinical Lab Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charges of Income Tax Officer 18(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1215/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

returned income of the appellant is Rs. 14,07,000/- and therefore the jurisdiction over the appellant would be that of the Income-Tax Officer 15(2)(4) and not the DCIT 15 (2)(2) thus rendering the that the assessment made under section 143(3) based on the above

Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 357/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 28

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of Revenue ; or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 13. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Yashbir Malik, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sonipat

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2728/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)

BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Yashbir Malik, Vs Income-tax Officer, C/o M/s Hindustan Steel & Cement Ward-4, Sonipat Store (Prop. Yashbir Malik), (Haryana). G.T. Road, Kundli Sonipat-131001. PAN- ANSPM3537D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented

Kailash Garg HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 29(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 7046/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 5(2)Section 6

DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Kailash Garg (HUF), Vs Income-tax Officer, D-186, Okhla Industrial Area, Ward-29(5), New Delhi. Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 PAN- AAAHK3117N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntl Lemnis India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6006/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

purpose of paragraphs III, IV, V and VI above. 3.3.8. As held in case of Shell Global Solutions International BV vs. Income-tax Officer [2015] 64 taxmann.com 3 (Ahmedabad - 12 Modi Entertainment Ltd. Trib.), connotations of 'make available' clause in the treaty is no longer res integra. As stated ... mutandis for the purpose of paragraphs III, IV, V and VI above. As held in case of Shell Global Solutions International BV vs. Income-tax Officer [2015] 64 taxmann.com 3 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), connotations of 'make available' clause in the treaty is no longer res integra. As stated

Shiva Ranjani Vejja, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 267/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 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

Shakti Stonex, Industrial Area Kishangarh vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

pointed out above, since the returns for 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 ... clause (ii) of sub-section (1) is concerned, such full and true disclosure has to be 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

Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Indore vs. The ITO 3(4), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 629/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 69

SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 629/Ind/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Income-tax Officer, 81, S.R. Compound, 3(4), Lasudiya Mauri, ON | Indore. Dewas Naka, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AFEPS1290P Assessee by | Shri P.M. Chaudhary