“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

Deepanshu Srivastava, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 4063/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

have done so and must have found that the account books supported the claims for deductions, when the deductions were disallowed, by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that detailed information regarding them was not available, justice was not done to the assessee. It was not possible

Manoj Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44 (6) New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 164/DEL/2026[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2026

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR

Auto Nirvahakara Credit Operative Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Udupi

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

ITA 2214/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 28Section 80P(2)(a)

interest income of Rs. 32,043 from scheduled banks. The AO relying on the judicial of Totgars, Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka reported in [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC)/[2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC)/[2010] 229 CTR 209 (SC)[08-02-2010] submitted that interest

C 2062 Kaveripakkam Primary Agricultural Coop Crdeit Society, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

ITA 3998/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3998/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 C 2062 Kaveripakkam Primary Vs Income-Tax Officer, Agricultural Coop Credit Society, Ward-1, No.2, Barracks 320, Theradi Street, Cross Street, Officers Kaveripakkam, Arakkonam, Lane, Vellore-632001. Vellore – 632505. Pan: Aahfc5813C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri J. Saravanan – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 08.08.2025. The Assesseeraised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3998/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 C 2062 Kaveripakkam Primary Vs Income-Tax Officer, Agricultural Coop Credit Society, Ward-1, No.2, Barracks 320, Theradi Street, Cross Street, Officers Kaveripakkam, Arakkonam, Lane, Vellore-632001. Vellore – 632505. PAN: AAHFC5813C Appellant

Perurchettipalayam Paccs, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3223/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.N. Madan Kumar, JCIT

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., v. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka", wherein the issue came up for consideration as to whether the interest income received by a Co-operative Bank from its members

Perurchettipalayam Paccs, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3222/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.N. Madan Kumar, JCIT

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Perurchettipalayam Paccs, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3221/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.N. Madan Kumar, JCIT

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Perurchettipalayam Paccs, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3220/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.N. Madan Kumar, JCIT

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Dazzler Confectionery Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.8411/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dazzler Confectionery Income-tax Officer, Company, Private Limited, WARD 3(1)(1),Room No.607, Plot C34, MIDC Mirjole, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (RTG) S.O, Ratnagiri, M.K. Road, Mumbai – Maharashtra

Sujata Prakash Jawale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7572/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Clayking Minerals LLP vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] reported in 174 taxmann.com 1111, wherein the tribunal while deciding on Section 56(2)(x) which has replaced Section 56(2)(vii)(b) since October

Swarnimtouch Solutions Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2466/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80

prescribed form. Swarnimtouch Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year –2024-25 - 5– 11. Similarly, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Income-tax Officer (Exemption) vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak [2025] 179 taxmann.com 574 (Mumbai - Trib.) / [2025] 215 ITD 415 (Mumbai - Trib.) dated 17-10-2025 held ... audit report was held to be unjustified. 13. Further, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Puran Chand Arora Charitable Trust vs. Income-tax Officer, Exemption [2025] 172 taxmann.com 161 (Delhi - Trib.) / [2025] 211 ITD 678 (Delhi - Trib.) dated 22-01-2025 held that where audit report in Form

Udaya Souharda Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2472/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

from the ruling of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of the Karnataka in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer Word-V dated 28th October 2014, reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka). The Hon’ble Bench of Karnataka High Court distinguished the ratio

Shri. Shanthisagar Co Op Credit Society Limited, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 2081/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

from the ruling of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court of the Karnataka in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer Word-V dated 28th October 2014, reported in [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka). The Hon’ble Bench of Karnataka High Court distinguished the ratio ... society. 18.1 Reliance was placed on a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Jagadguru Mouneshwar Pattin Sahakari Sangha Niyamita vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot (ITA No. 1119/Bang/2023), wherein under similar circumstances additions made on account of cash deposits during demonetisation were deleted. The learned

Sree Cauvery Souharda Credit Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1854/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sumana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR

Section 10Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Analog Devices India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2074/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar & Shri Nirmal MathewFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT (DR)

Section 250

this regard, we note that the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Scancafe Digital Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer reported in 94 taxmann.com 515 followed the decision of Mumbai bench order in the case of Willis Processing Services (I) (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner

Sakalaspur Veerappiah Rudrappa Coffee Planter Harakanahally Estate, Ballupet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hassan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2200/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 69

disproved the same with cogent material. 12.4 We also find force in the judicial precedent in the case of Ananthakrishna Vasudev Aithal vs. Income-tax Officer reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 376 (Bangalore - Trib.)[24-11-2022] wherein it has been held that to invoke provision of section

Ajay Kumar Gupta, Panipat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 1Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 263Section 69C

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

East Delhi Leasing P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7917/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

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

Rai Sahab Bhaiyalal Dubey Educational and Medical Charitable Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

remain invested or deposited in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee was not entitled to accumulate 25% of this deemed income because permitting it to do so would

M/S Sova, Panaji vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

para 9 of the judgement their hon’ble lordships laid that; ‘There must be some grievous error in the Order passed by the Income-tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments, which on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial ... accordance with the provisions of the Act, and this task is entrusted to the Revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue,’ (Emphasis supplied) ITAT