← 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 Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 61/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

found in that case that there was no finding of fact that loan was granted on interest. The finding of the Income-Tax officer is that the assessee could have collected interest. Facts of the present case are entirely different. Here, interest is charged by the appellant as per impounded

Shri Onkar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hoshiarpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 48/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

reproduce as below: - “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 I.T.A. Nos. 47 & 48/Asr/2018 10 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-2009 Assistant Commissioner

Shri Onkar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hoshiarpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 47/ASR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

reproduce as below: - “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 I.T.A. Nos. 47 & 48/Asr/2018 10 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-2009 Assistant Commissioner

Piyush Sanawar, Deoband vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)4, Deoband

In the result, the appeal is noted as dismissed

ITA 1806/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Piyush Sanawar, Vs Income-tax Officer, Railway Road, Deoband, Ward-3(3)4, Deoband. Saharanpur-247554 PAN- AFYPS4031A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Raghav Sharma, CA and Ms. Neha Gupta

Ratroi Maa Trading P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Wazrd-21(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1778/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)

DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ratroi Maa Trading Private Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, M-98, 2nd Floor, Ward-21(1), New Delhi. Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. PAN- AAECR0612A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case ... dated 18-05- 1967 which reads as under: ‘’1. Recently a case has come to the notice of the Board where the Income-tax Officer has disallowed the “cess” paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of section

Ahlstrom Fiber Composites (I) P. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

international transaction of sales to Associated Enterprises 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income-tax Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham ('Ld. AO') under the directions of Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP'), erred in making

Ahlstrom Fiber Composites (I) P. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

international transaction of sales to Associated Enterprises 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income-tax Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham ('Ld. AO') under the directions of Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP'), erred in making

Ahlstrom Fibercomposites India Pvt. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

international transaction of sales to Associated Enterprises 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income-tax Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham ('Ld. AO') under the directions of Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP'), erred in making

Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Ghaziabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 912/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 912 /DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, CH. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad. RDC, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad. PAN- AAECD4670Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Akhilesh Kumar ... short “FAA”) in appeal no. 604879581280117 for the assessment year 2014-15, arising out of assessment 2 order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds

Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3813/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Ghaziabad u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), against the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Income-tax Officer Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Act, for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The return

Awanish Pandey, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

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

ITA 128/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.128/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 263

this stage, we are reminded of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs Income-Tax Officer and Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that the validity of the reopening of an assessment

M/S Essargee Construction Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ITO -1 (5), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 10/IND/2023[22014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Essargee Construction Ito 1(5) Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Vs. A-10, Mezenine Floor Essarjee House Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8852F Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2023

Section 40Section 40A(3)

provides that no disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shall be made where the assessee satisfies the Income-tax Officer that the payment could not be made by way of a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft ... regard to the nature of the transaction and the necessity for expeditious settlement thereof, and also furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer as to the genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee. 14. About this clause, many doubts were raised and enquiries were

Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Cir-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1031/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 37(1)Section 80G

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 with 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.” The principle which has been laid down

Smt. Pushpa Chhajer, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

utilized the same. The Hon’ble Apex Court in C.Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) observed as follows: “The Income-tax Officer is not bound by any technical rules of the law of evidence. It is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even

Pooja Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-56(4), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5154/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 131

BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pooja Jain, Vs Income-tax Officer, J-3/3, West Jyoti Nagar, Ward-56(4), New Delhi. Shahdara, Delhi-110094. PAN-AEKPJ2802F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented

Vijubha Jitubha Jadeja, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 105/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

under: “The case in regard to the subsequent year 1949-50 presents no difficulty. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the Income-tax Officer's assessment order in respect of this year was pending at the material time before the Appellate I.T.A No. 105/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where 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 of the Revenue unless ... view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India

Sunil Kumar Doshi, Barmer vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1, Bangalore / Barmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 56

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer

Rivet Electricals P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 775/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s Rivet Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, IPSO Legal, Ward-2(1), Faridabad. H-35, 1st Floor, Jangpura Extn., New Delhi-110014. PAN- AAFCR8803C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. Shyam