“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

Paramount Blankets Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-3, Panipat

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c)

PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6869 /DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Paramount Blankets Private Ltd., Vs Income-tax Officer, 312, Ansal Bhawan, Ward-3, Panipat. 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. PAN- AADCP3611Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented

Nirmal Uppal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1955/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1954/Del/2022, A.Y. 2016-17 Ita No. 1955/Del/2022, A.Y. 2016-17 Smt. Nirmal Uppal Vs. Dcit, House No. 25, Sector-28, Central Circle-7 Faridabad New Delhi Pan : Aaqpu3784P

Section 132(4)Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

taxmann.com 414 (Delhi), Heval Navinbhai Patel vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(2) [2021] 126 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat), Krishan Kumar vs. Income-tax Officer, Patiala [2019] 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Sarwankumar Sharma [2014] 49 taxmann.com 101 (Gujarat), Swami Sharan Garg vs. Commissioner

Nirmal Uppal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1954/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Maheshwari Pragati Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 3225/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemaheshwari Pragati Mandal V. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre 2Nd Floor Maheshwari Bhavan Delhi Girgaon Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aaatm0226G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)

assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of Page No. | 11 Maheshwari Pragati Mandal the trust. The Income-tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets ... assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the Income-tax Officer stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent

Farooq Abdulla Merchant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

Computation IN THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM of - Assessment year 2005-06 BENCH M. Siva Parvathi & Ors. Where out of sale in consideration v. Income-tax Officer (Copy of of property question assessee in Order enclosed in Paper book made payment to two persons who Page No. 210-226) claimed

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

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 Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai. 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

Kongsberg Maritime Cm India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addll/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO-NFAC, Delhi

ITA 336/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH

Manoj Mediratta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -13(3), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed on these grounds

ITA 6499/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrikul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

BEFORE SHRIKUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6499 /DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manoj Mediratta, Vs Income-tax Officer, A-l 1, First Floor, Kirti Nagar, Ward-13(3), New Delhi. New Delhi-110015 PAN- AAMPM9302R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri

Alanice Computer Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 538/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktiit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 68Section 69C

provisions of sections 147 and 148 (as they existed of the relevant time). Section 147 read thus: "147. Income escaping assessment.- (a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section ... assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or 6 Alanice Computer Services P. Ltd (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure

Jerambhai Bhagvanbhai Gohil, Varachha, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI

Javaharlal S Dhariwal, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 40Section 57

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI

Sonia Sharma, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(4), Noida

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

ITA 316/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sonia Sharma, Vs Ito, A-132, Sector-40, Noida, Gautam Ward-5(3)(4), Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301. Noida. Pan-Bosps3283Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Ca & Ms. Sonia Sharma (Assessee In Person) Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2023

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 901

appellant did not furnish form 67. After receiving intimation order appellant met assessing officer and provide necessary information regarding this case. Than Income-Tax officer advised for submit rectification u/s 154. 6). That the appellant submitted rectification u/s 154 and claimed relief u/s 90/91 of Rs.330400.00 DTAA. The rectification processed

Ahuja and Anand Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 349/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 68

giving rise to this reference but in those relating to the assessment of Banarasidas. Section 37(1) of the Act confers on the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal the powers vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying ... ./2020 Admittedly, no such steps as are provided for by this statutory provision for the appearance of the witnesses were taken by the Income-tax Officer for the appearance of Banarasidas. We are of the opinion that under these circumstances neither the Income-tax Officer nor the Income-tax Appellate

Shri Sham Sunder Aggarwal, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 17/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 263o

points raised in the statement. He thought that the best course in the circumstances was to remand the matter to the Income-tax Officer for consideration of the points raised in the assessee's written statement. That certainly was not the proper course to be adopted ... necessary for the Commissioner to state in what manner he considered that the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and what the basis was for such a conclusion. After indicating his reasons for such a conclusion, it would certainly have

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank.” 16. The Coordinate Bench in case of KaliandasUdyogBhavan Premises Co-op Society Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer-21(2)(1), Mumbai [2018] 94 Taxmann.com 15 had an occasion to examine similar contention and it was held that though the co-operative bank

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 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: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

T vs. Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2614/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Tvs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Acit -2(3)(1) B-106, 10Th Floor, B-Wing Mumbai Vs. Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400001

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sanghvi & Shri Ujjval GangwalFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Kashyap CIT DR

Section 3Section 48Section 50B

case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee ?" In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question which

Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(1), New Delhi

ITA 139/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 139/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

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. 6.3.5 It is claimed that circumstances of the Assessee were exceptional ... original form from 01.04.1970 to 27.07.1995, prior to its amendment, did provide that in any other case 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

Manoj Juneja, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 841/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 841 /DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manoj Juneja, Vs Income-tax Officer, 6/1, Singh Sabha Road, Ward-35(2), New Delhi. Shakti Nagar, New Delhi-110006 PAN- AAFPJ4863R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Manoj Juneja