← 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

M/S Radiance Exim Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6635/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6635/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Radiance Exim Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-8(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, Vs. Shiv Chawl No.2, Shiv Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Sagar Sejar Samiti, Tanaji Road, Mumbai-400020. Nagar, Kurar Village, Malad (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400097. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr4706L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai Dated 31.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Legality/Validity Of The Action Of Ao To Re-Open The Assessment Of Ay 2007-08 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 26.03.2014 & Consequent Passing Of Re-Assessment Order Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015, Which According To The Ld. Ar, Is Bad In Law For Several Reasons (Infra). According To The Ld. Ar, The Ao Did Not Had The Requisite Jurisdiction To Re-Open The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Because The Reasons Recorded By The Ao Dated 18.03.2014 (Refer Page

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in some of the cases as soon as the objections were rejected by the concerned Income-tax Officer, even the assessment order has been passed within a very short time whereby the assessee is left without any remedy to challenge such ... assessee. 5. Accordingly, rule is made absolute. 6 A.Y. 2007-08 M/s. Radiance Exim Pvt. Ltd. 6. We also direct that the Income-tax Officer concerned shall follow the above procedure strictly in all such cases of reopening of assessment. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.” 6. According

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

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 Karnataka High Court in the case

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6124/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

Bench- -1, Mumbai, vide order dated 22.09.2017 1, Mumbai, vide order dated 22.09.2017 xiii. Haji Nazir Hussain v. Income Haji Nazir Hussain v. Income-tax Officer [2004] 91 ITD 42 tax Officer [2004] 91 ITD 42 (Delhi) (TM) Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain 8.2 Relying

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

ITA 6123/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50Section 68Section 69C

Bench- -1, Mumbai, vide order dated 22.09.2017 1, Mumbai, vide order dated 22.09.2017 xiii. Haji Nazir Hussain v. Income Haji Nazir Hussain v. Income-tax Officer [2004] 91 ITD 42 tax Officer [2004] 91 ITD 42 (Delhi) (TM) Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain 8.2 Relying

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

rule of the law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Again, it is not open to the Income-tax Officer, if income has accrued to the assessee, and is liable to be included in the total income of a particular year, to ignore

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3510/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhshree Ram Urban Vs. Income Tax Officer- Infrastructure Ltd. Range-7(2)(3), Shree Ram Mills Aayakar Bhavan, Premises, Ganpatrao Mumbai – 400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccs0454P Appellant .. Respondent Shree Ram Urban Vs. Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Ltd. Tax(A)-14 (Formerly Shree Ram Mills Ltd.), Mumbai Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccs0454P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 178Section 238Section 33Section 33(5)Section 52

liquidator) shall, within thirty days after he has become such liquidator, give notice of his appointment as such to the Income-tax Officer who is entitled to assess the income of the company. (2) The Income-tax Officer shall, after making such enquiries of calling for such information ... months from the date on which he receives notice of the appointment of the liquidator the amount which, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, would be sufficient to provide for any tax which is then, or is likely thereafter to become, payable by the company. [(3) The liquidator

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

rule of the law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Again, it is not open to the Income-tax Officer, if income has accrued to the assessee, and is liable to be included in the total income of a particular year, to ignore

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 7(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5740/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhshree Ram Urban Vs. Income Tax Officer- Infrastructure Ltd. Range-7(2)(3), Shree Ram Mills Aayakar Bhavan, Premises, Ganpatrao Mumbai – 400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccs0454P Appellant .. Respondent Shree Ram Urban Vs. Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Ltd. Tax(A)-14 (Formerly Shree Ram Mills Ltd.), Mumbai Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccs0454P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 178Section 238Section 33Section 33(5)Section 52

liquidator) shall, within thirty days after he has become such liquidator, give notice of his appointment as such to the Income-tax Officer who is entitled to assess the income of the company. (2) The Income-tax Officer shall, after making such enquiries of calling for such information ... months from the date on which he receives notice of the appointment of the liquidator the amount which, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, would be sufficient to provide for any tax which is then, or is likely thereafter to become, payable by the company. [(3) The liquidator

Rajarathnam'S Jewels, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 370/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)

computed in the manner provided by the Income-tax Act permitting allowances prescribed thereby. For that purpose it is the duty of the Income-tax Officer to find out what profits the business has made according to true accountancy practice, in the light of the system adopted, and thereafter

Trade Line Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3534/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3339/Chny/2018 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3534/Chny/2018 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Trade Line Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ No.8, L & M Century Plaza, Corporate Circle-3(1), Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-5078-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B.Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 14Section 178(6)Section 238Section 31

liquidator) shall, within thirty days after he has become such liquidator, give notice of his appointment as such to the Income-tax Officer who is entitled to assess the income of the company. (2) The Income-tax Officer shall, after making such enquiries of calling for such information ... months from the date on which he receives notice of the appointment of the liquidator the amount which, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, would be sufficient to provide for any tax which is then, or is likely thereafter to become, payable by the company. (3) The liquidator

Trade Line Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3339/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3339/Chny/2018 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3534/Chny/2018 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Trade Line Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ No.8, L & M Century Plaza, Corporate Circle-3(1), Vs. Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-5078-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B.Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 14Section 178(6)Section 238Section 31

liquidator) shall, within thirty days after he has become such liquidator, give notice of his appointment as such to the Income-tax Officer who is entitled to assess the income of the company. (2) The Income-tax Officer shall, after making such enquiries of calling for such information ... months from the date on which he receives notice of the appointment of the liquidator the amount which, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, would be sufficient to provide for any tax which is then, or is likely thereafter to become, payable by the company. (3) The liquidator

Kundanmal Keshrimalji Dhakad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-18(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1691/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhkundanmal Keshrimalji Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhakad, Shop No.14, Ward 18(2)(2), Ladivala Chambers, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Sheikh Memon Street, Mumbai – 400 007 Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aeepd9718G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sridhar Govind Menon Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Hereinafter Referred To As "Nfac" Has Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte On 30 April, 2022 Ignoring The Fact That The Adjournment Request Of The Appellant Dated 25Th April, 2022 Requesting For Adjournment Till 10Th May, 2022 Was Already On Records & The Same Was Pending As On The Date Of Deciding The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kundanmal Keshrimalji Vs. Income-tax Officer, Dhakad, Shop No.14, Ward 18(2)(2), Ladivala Chambers, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Sheikh Memon Street, Mumbai – 400 007 Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further held that where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order ... 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

Sumer Nagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd Bldg.No. 1, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 32(1) (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1239/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsumer Nagar Co- Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward Operative Housing 32(3)(4), Mumbai Society Limited, Bldg. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc No.1, Ground Floor, Complex Bandra East, Office Of Sumer Nagar Mumbai - 400051 Bldg No. 1. S.V. Road, Near Flyover, Borivali (W) Mumbai – 400 092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacas6832K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sumer Nagar Co- Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward operative Housing 32(3)(4), Mumbai Society Limited, Bldg. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC No.1, Ground Floor, Complex Bandra East, Office of Sumer Nagar Mumbai

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3900/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 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

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3899/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 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

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3898/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 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

Kusuma Cashews, Karkala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 511/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

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

Dy. CIT. Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1663/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged

Dy. CIT. Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Colas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1662/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80Section 801B(9)Section 80I

material time engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil and therefore was entitled to rebate at 35 per cent. The Income-tax Officer was clearly in error in not allowing rebate at the rate of 35 percent. The 23 ITA No.1640/M/2022 & ors. M/s. Hindustan Coals Private Limited mistake ... well as other documents that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of mineral oil, and therefore the Income-tax Officer was bound to proceed in making a provisional assessment on that basis and assess the assessee- company on the footing that it was engaged