“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

Baidoddi Eshappa, Raichur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT

Section 263

Year : 2017-18 Baidoddi Eshappa, The Pr. Commissioner of Income- Shop No.73, Plot No.10, tax , Rajendra Gunj, Hubali, Raichur-584 102. Vs. The Income-tax Officer, PAN NO : ACFPE 5383 H Ward-1, Raichur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.A Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT Date

M/S. Yelahanka - Ap Border Tollways Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 458/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Yelahanka-Ap Border Tollways Pvt. Ltd., # 702, Provident The Income-Tax Welworth City, Officer, Yelahanka- Ward – 7[1][4], Doddaballapur Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Marashandra, Bengaluru – 562 163. Pan: Aaacy7243E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 68

circumstances. The said decision has already been upheld by the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar T Jain v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bengaluru [2019] 101 taxmann.com 164 (Karnataka). 5.6 As regards the balance amount of Rs 37,500/- pertaining to the brought forward

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has held as under – “The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted ... rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 346/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

Asha Devi, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deva Rathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

held as under:- “In Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) also the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, while remarking that the source of income of the assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce ... there evidence regarding the interest received by the assessee Page 7 of 9 from different parties on her investments. Notwithstanding these defects the Income-tax Officer did not investigate into the various sources but assessed the assessee on a total income of Rs. 9,037. The inquiries made

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Shah, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

this issue is no longer res-integra. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has, in the case of Aavishkar Film (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 11 (1) (1), Mumbai: 178 ITD 613 (Mumbai)[21-06-2019] has held that where an assessee objects to adoption of stamp duty

Ashok Rasiklal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1268/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54E

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 46ASection 68

power to enhance the assessment by discovering new sources of income not mentioned in the return of the assessee or considered by the Income-tax Officer in the order appealed against. Learned Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... Appellate Assistant Commissioner to travel outside the record, i.e., the return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, with a view to finding out new sources of income and the power of enhancement under section 31(3) is restricted to the sources of income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

section 143(1)(a) on the basis of the returns said to have been filed under the Amnesty Scheme, the power of the Income-tax Officer under sections 147 and 148 is taken away. It is, therefore, not possible for us to quash the impugned notices on the said ground

Abhushan Jewellerys (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 793/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

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 ... 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.” 7 Abhushan Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd. The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial

Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 710/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

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.” 6 Asian Star Company Ltd. The principle which

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes 10 ITA No. 285/Mum/2022-Hemal Maganlal Shah [2005] 97 ITD 595 (ASR.) Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills v. Income-tax Officer, Ward I, Gurdaspur Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1997-98 - During assessment ... liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes [Para 38] [In favour of revenue] [2016] 69 taxmann.com 60 (Jaipur - Trib.) Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1) v. Bhansali Trading Corporation Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim

Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -WD 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 8 & 9, Ground Floor, Kakad, Chamber, 132, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaach0375E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Piyush Chhajed, C.A Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chhajed, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 208Section 234CSection 250Section 44A

when liability to tax arose - Whether order of Tribunal was justified - Held, yes [2010] 127 ITD 257 (MUM.) Torrential Investments (P.) Ltd. * v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(3), Mumbai Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest, chargeable as - Assessment year 1996- 97 - Capital gains accrued

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

order of the Tribunal, the fact- finding authority, that reads thus: "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before

Siddiq Sattar Rawani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward - 4 (4), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 433/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Siddiq Sattar Rawani, Ito, Ward – 4(4), 1St Floor, Room No.2, 6Th Floor, Plot No.318, Ashar It Park, Amboli Naka, Vs. Road No.16, S.V. Road, Z, Wagle Ind. Estate, Andheri (W), Thane, Mumbai- 400 058 Maharashtra – 400 604 Pan: Agmpr6294D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04 . 08 . 2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44

Facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the learned Income-tax officer order for estimating commission income at 8% of consignment sales instead of correct 2.5% on consignment sales. 2 Shri Siddiq Sattar Rawani 2. On the Facts

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

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. The phrase "prejudicial ... 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

M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 746/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner Of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aafcc2775E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Bangalore -2 U/S. 263 Of The Act For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru -2, Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30/03/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar

Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 801A

Delhi Television Ltd., reported in (2013) 39 taxmann.com 135;  CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd.reported in (2014) 44 taxmann.com 138 Page 22 18. The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order ... given to the word "erroneous" in section 263 emerges out of this context. It is because it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent that the word "erroneous" in section 263 includes

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

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

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

Hylam Ltd. where the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under. "That computation of income and tax can be made by the income-tax Officer not only in regular assessment made under section 143 of the Act but also in order passed from time to time giving effect

Sadhu Salian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

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