← 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

Shafa Home, New Delhi vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward 2(1), New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

ITA 725/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 143(3)

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 725 /DEL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shafa Home, Vs Income-tax Officer (Exemption), Plot no. 130, Pocket-1, Ward-2(1), New Delhi Sector-20, Rohini, New Delhi-110086. PAN-AACTS5244E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented

Mamta Rani, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(2), Saharanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mamta Rani, Vs Income-tax Officer, 111, South City, Delhi Road, Ward-3(30(2), Saharanpur. Saharanpur-247001 PAN-AGDPR7826A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented

ITO, Ward-2(3), New Delhi vs. Amu Leasing Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1064/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1064 /DEL/20 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income-tax Officer, Vs M/s Amu Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3), New Delhi. C/o Babubhai & Co., 152, Office Complex, Jhandewalan Extn., Phase-1, New Delhi-110055. PAN- AAACA0552C ... assessment order dated 14.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 2 the “Act”), passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3), New Delhi, (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”). 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal

Lokenath Investment Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

examining facts formed belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, proceedings of reassessment initiated in cases of applicant were justified. 6. Income-tax Officer vs. Sai Everest Building & Developers- [2022] 142 taxmann.com 383 (Mumbai Trib.)-Where assessee-firm claimed to have received unsecured loans during relevant years, however ... loan taken and underneath sources for making these investments, addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 was justified. 7. C.V Ravi vs. Income-tax Officer- [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC)- SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce

Ramesh Babu Bandi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramesh Babu Bandi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.52-1/5-1 Ward-2(3) Flat Tf-1, Lakshmi Narayan Enclave Vijayawada Veterinary Colony Gunadala [Pan : Akppb0435R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144Section 69A

ground raised in Form-35. 5. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in not considering the fat admitted by the Learned Income-tax Officer, to the effect that ‘the assessee has furnished confirmation from other parties’. 6. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in not obtaining

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

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 9/IND/2023[22013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 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

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

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 8/IND/2023[22012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 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

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

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 7/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 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

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

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 6/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 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

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

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 11/IND/2023[22015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 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

The DCIT1(1), Indore vs. Shri Ravi Arora, Indore

ITA 212/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Therefore, according

M/S. Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 297/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)
Section 143Section 250

been condone. The learned authorized representative relied upon the following judgement, • IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'C' Sri Suhas Suresh Shet v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation [2022] 140 taxmann.com 96 • Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji ... very difficult to be sustained.” Reliance in this regard is also placed upon the decision in the matter of Ganesh Foundry. Versus Income-Tax Officer[2000 (4) TMI 162] wherein the Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur held that “It is not practically possible for assessee to declare uniform rate

ACIT, Alwar vs. Raghuveer Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 1039/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)
Section 143Section 250

been condone. The learned authorized representative relied upon the following judgement, • IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'C' Sri Suhas Suresh Shet v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation [2022] 140 taxmann.com 96 • Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji ... very difficult to be sustained.” Reliance in this regard is also placed upon the decision in the matter of Ganesh Foundry. Versus Income-Tax Officer[2000 (4) TMI 162] wherein the Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur held that “It is not practically possible for assessee to declare uniform rate

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

revision was taken note of. The principle is to the effect that where two views of a particular aspect are possible, for an Income-tax Officer, and he has chosen one, the Commissioner cannot reopen the matter on the ground that another view is possible.” 12. Furthermore, the second limb ... learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill account

Executive Trading Co. Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Comm of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 281/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., G-1, Ashirwad Building Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai - 400009 [PAN:AAACE3492M] …………… Appellant Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Vs Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta Shri Dhaval Shah For the Respondent/Department : Shri Biswanath Das Date Conclusion

Ksa Enterprise, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1448/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 148

BEFORE VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1448 & 1449/Mum/2023 (Assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14) KSA Enterprises vs Income-tax Officer-22(6)(2) Ground Floor, 2B, Kapur Mansion Pirmal Chambers, Lal Baug 10, Moreland Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400 013 Maumbai-400 011 PAN : AALFK6188J

Suruchi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 1288/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)

made by the Assessing Officer. Your appellant submits that they are entitled to exemption 2 M/s. Suruchi u/s.11 and that the learned Income-tax Officer be directed to grant exemption w/s.11. Without prejudice to the above, even if the appellant is not allowed exemption u/s.11 and assessed to tax

Rits Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1886/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he 6 ITA No.170/PUN/2021 considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer is 'erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue'. It is not an arbitrary or unchartered power. It can be exercised

ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Kamana Industries Pvt Ltd, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4997/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs Kamana Industries Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-30, Piau Maniyari, New Delhi. Narela Road, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana – 131 028. Pan Aabck7580K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav & Shri Shivam Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.4997/Del/2019 For Ay 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, In Appeal No.172/16- 17/2606 Dated 13.03.2019 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.12.2016 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Share Capital Received By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs.7,10,00,000/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

order of assessment passed u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.12.2016 by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal

Ketan Tokershi Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC--2, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1107/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 68

placed further reliance on the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Krishnendu Chowdhury Vs Income-tax Officer (2017) (5) TMI 290 (Kolkatta) where similar view was held by the Tribunal. 7. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that the monetary ... crux of the issue in the case is that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the Income-tax Officer in terms of Instruction No. 1 of 2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], dated January 31, 2011. As per the instruction the notice