← 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

Shri Arun Agrawal, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 214/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 214/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Arun Agrawal 85, Pandri Textile Market, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan :Acjpa2323D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

observations, we are of the considered view that as the framing of the assessment in the case of the present assessee by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai is clearly found to be in contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the same cannot be justified ... deal with the objection raised by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had not called in question the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai within the stipulated time period of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice(s) u/ss.143

M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 75/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.75/Rjt/2021 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.G-557, Vs. Of Income-Tax-1, Gidc Metoda, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. Pan: Aadcr1763P

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according ... been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income-tax Officer while making

Shri Jayantilal Bachubhai Thumar, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (4), Rajkot

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

ITA 68/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.68/Rjt/2020 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Shri Jayantilal Bachubhai Income-Tax Officer, Thumar, Vs. Ward-2(1)(4), Tirth Complex, Rakot. Opp. Raj Petrol Pump, Canal Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Abkpt3852C

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekaria, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 69

SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.68/Rjt/2020 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Shri Jayantilal Bachubhai Income-tax Officer, Thumar, Vs. Ward-2(1)(4), Tirth Complex, Rakot. Opp. Raj Petrol Pump, Canal Road, Rajkot-360001. PAN: ABKPT3852C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri

Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan, Silvassa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 238/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo-motu 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

Narayani Bai Dangi, Udaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Udaipur

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

ITA 42/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.42/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234Section 250Section 54B

Assessment Year: 2016-17 “It has to be noted, however, that beyond these calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the appellants. The cash book of the appellants was accepted ... either party. The appellants took it that the affidavits of these parties were enough and neither the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, nor the Income-tax Officer, who was present at the hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, considered it necessary to call for them in order to cross

Micro Stock Holding Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(4), New Delhi

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 171/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaa.Y. 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2015-16 M/s Micro Stock Holding Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, 98, Old Rohtak Road, Ward-16(4), New Delhi. Shahzada Bagh Industrial Area, New Delhi-110035. PAN- AAGCM3051Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None ... arising out of order dated 30.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-16(4), New Delhi. 2 2. Heard. As the case was called for hearing none appeared for the assessee. The record shows that

Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 456/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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 the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The reopening

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

where section 71 of the Income-tax Act, was applicable to the case of the respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that questions there could be no two opinions which was not proved the scope of relevant provisions

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

where section 71 of the Income-tax Act, was applicable to the case of the respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that questions there could be no two opinions which was not proved the scope of relevant provisions

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

where section 71 of the Income-tax Act, was applicable to the case of the respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that questions there could be no two opinions which was not proved the scope of relevant provisions

Bharat Bhushan Verma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of the observations above

ITA 236/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 236/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bharat Bhushan Verma Main Road, Verma Transport Bharat, Baikunth, P.O.-Baikunth, Raipur (C.G.)-493 116 Pan : Acdpv7254J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Oficer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

observations, we are of the considered view that as the framing of the assessment in the case of the present assessee by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai is clearly found to be in contravention of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the same cannot be justified ... deal with the objection raised by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had not called in question the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai within the stipulated time period of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice(s) u/ss.143

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 433/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra Addl. CITa
Section 143(3)Section 234B

affidavits were not “It has to be noted, however, that beyond these calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the appellants. The cash book of the appellants was accepted ... either party. The appellants took it that the affidavits of these parties were enough and neither the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, nor the Income-tax Officer, who was present at the hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, considered it necessary to call for them in order to cross

Sh. Nawal Kishore Dangayach, A-34-A, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary ( Addl. CIT) a
Section 14ASection 37

bench of ITAT. Hon'ble ITAT held in the case of [2022] 144 taxmann.com 2 (Bangalore - Trib.) Enzen Global Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer as under- "III. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Business expenditure - Allowability of (Interest on delayed payment of TDS) Assessment year

Thales Six Gts France Sas, Delhi vs. DCIT, 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2380/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 119Section 143(3)

side-stepped causing prejudice to the assessee by bringing to naught the object for which it is issued. [See: K.P. Varghese vs. Income-tax Officer 1, [1981] 7 Taxman 13 (SC); Also see: UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., (1999) 4 SCC 599], ” 18. The argument advanced

Ganga Saran Sharma, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1844/DEL/2022[AGEPS6393J]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1844/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ganga Saran Sharma, Vs Dcit, Ka-5, Kavi Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ageps6393J Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca & Sh. Gagan Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Waseem Arshad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

Mumbai Vs. Shri Manekchand Kothari ITA No. 194/Mum/2018 12. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. Income-tax Officer 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) held that collecting jewellery of 906.900 gms by a woman in a married life of 25 years 7 Ganga Saran Sharma

Ankur Sharma, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1843/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

Mumbai Vs. Shri Manekchand Kothari ITA No. 194/Mum/2018 12. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. Income-tax Officer 14 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) held that collecting jewellery of 906.900 gms by a woman in a married life of 25 years in form of stree

Bhushan Kumar Gupta, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbhushan Kumar Gupta Vs. Pr. Cit House No.130, Sector-11, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana -132 103 Pan No. Aatpg 2846 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2023

Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69

clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu 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

Max Maintenance Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2209/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 37Section 40

/DEL/2022 : [A.Y. 2017-18 ( U/s 154)] & ITA No. 2209 /DEL/2022 : [A.Y. 2017-18 ( U/s 143(1)] M/s Max Maintenance Limited, Vs Income-tax Officer, C-5/99, Third Floor, New Kondli, Ward-16(3), New Delhi. Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096. PAN- AAJCM8958M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented

Max Maintenance Limited, New Dehli vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2208/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 37Section 40

/DEL/2022 : [A.Y. 2017-18 ( U/s 154)] & ITA No. 2209 /DEL/2022 : [A.Y. 2017-18 ( U/s 143(1)] M/s Max Maintenance Limited, Vs Income-tax Officer, C-5/99, Third Floor, New Kondli, Ward-16(3), New Delhi. Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096. PAN- AAJCM8958M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented

Manohar Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur

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

ITA 159/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

aggregating to Rs.1,50,000. The three amounts were shown to have been received by way of explanation, the respondent produced before the Income-tax Officer the letter of confirmation and the discharged hundis and gave particulars of those creditors who were assessees and whose general index numbers were with ... Department. Since the respondent, after making attempts, could not produce the parties, the Income-tax Officer, on its request, issued summons under s. 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the creditors, which however were returned unserved with the remark “left”. The Tribunal further found that the creditors, while