← 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

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

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

Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263

June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or 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

ITO 10 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6239/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Memphis 2Nd Floor, Room No. Investment & Trading 213, Aayakar Bhavan Co. Ltd Churchgate, 146, Chinar Bldg, Mumbai-400020. Sher-E-Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6735B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Adv & Shri.Shailesh Gupta.Ar Revenue By : Shri.T. Shankar. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. 1. 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deciding That The Assessee Had Discharged Its Onus Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions." 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Mis. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Wherein The Hon'Ble High Court Has Made Observation With Respect To Creditworthiness 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground Which May Be Necessary.

For Appellant: Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri.T. Shankar. CIT.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

subscription as unexplained credit - Held, yes - Whether where revenue urged that assessee had received share application money from bogus shareholders, it was for income-tax Officers to proceed Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. by reopening assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2616/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 147

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 A.Ys.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 New Metal Refinery India Pvt. Ltd. opportunity of hearing to the assessee

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2615/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 147

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 A.Ys.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 New Metal Refinery India Pvt. Ltd. opportunity of hearing to the assessee

New Metal Refinery India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2614/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2614 To 2616/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) New Metal Refinery India बनाम/ Dcit-5(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. 132, Appa Building, S.V.P. Line, Mumbai-400020. Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai- 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcn9710C (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order, Even Though In The Cause-Title Of The Impugned Order, It Is Shown That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Have Appeared For The Assessee. In Order To Demonstrate That It Was An Exparte Order, He Drew Our Attention To Para No. 7.2 Of The Impugned Order Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Observed That The Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing Time To Time & That Shri Shantilal Vora, Director Of Assessee Appeared For Hearing Time To Time & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Granted But He Could Neither Make Any

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 147

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 A.Ys.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 New Metal Refinery India Pvt. Ltd. opportunity of hearing to the assessee

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

Officer is the appropriate method. It rejected the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court stating that in case of Income-tax Officer vs. L’Oreal India (P.) Ltd. in ITA No. 5423/Mum/2009 dated 25 April 2012, it was having only trading business. Accordingly, it rejected

Ub Ostan (India) P. Ltd, Pune vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7039/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ub Ostan (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Officer-1(3)-4, Sahyadri Sadan, Tilak Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Pune-411-030. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aabcu 2815 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 56Section 68

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 UB Ostan (India) Private Limited, Income-tax Officer-1(3)-4, Sahyadri Sadan, Tilak Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Pune-411-030. Vs. Mumbai. PAN No. AABCU 2815 K Appellant Respondent Assessee

M/S. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

interest of revenue”. At page 88 of the report the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: For example, when an 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 interest of the Revenue ... unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the provisions of section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case and quash

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. If either of these conditions is not fulfilled, the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer would be without jurisdiction. The important words under s. 147(a) are " has reason to believe " and these words are stronger than the words ... satisfied ". The belief entertained by the Income-tax Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational. Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete Page 27 of 58 If there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts

Shri. Ratanlal Pukhraj Jain, Hubli vs. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward-1(4), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 145/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sumermal D Ostawal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 69A

books of the assessee, the cash collection from the debtors in the demonetization period is Rs.25,25,883/- and as per the Income-tax Officer, it is Rs.24,75,554/-. The difference in cash sales during the demonetization period has not properly explained by the assessee. 9. In the rejoinder

Dr. R Sridhar, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 50E

similar issue and 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 ... accounting year nor was there evidence regarding the interest received by the assessee 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 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Realtors, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7465/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – Ward – 2(2) V. M/S. Span Venture 6Th Floor, Ashar I. T. Park 1St Floor, Span Duplex Room No. 26, B-Wing Opp. Maxus Mall Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W) Road No. 16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane-401101 Pan: Abvfs7153A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

successful in this contention.” 6.12. We find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata reported in 347 ITR 347(Cal) had held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Realtors, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7464/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – Ward – 2(2) V. M/S. Span Venture 6Th Floor, Ashar I. T. Park 1St Floor, Span Duplex Room No. 26, B-Wing Opp. Maxus Mall Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W) Road No. 16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane-401101 Pan: Abvfs7153A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

successful in this contention.” 6.12. We find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata reported in 347 ITR 347(Cal) had held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Venture, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7463/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – Ward – 2(2) V. M/S. Span Venture 6Th Floor, Ashar I. T. Park 1St Floor, Span Duplex Room No. 26, B-Wing Opp. Maxus Mall Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W) Road No. 16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane-401101 Pan: Abvfs7153A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

successful in this contention.” 6.12. We find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 46(3), Kolkata reported in 347 ITR 347(Cal) had held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

agents Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of Exotic Fruits (P) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer (International Taxation) Ward-1(1), Bangalore (40 taxmann.com 348) wherein it has been held that export commission paid to non-resident agents would

Adibhuta Investmen Ts Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 679/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viia)

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.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed

Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 281/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil V. DCIT, Circle 6(2)(1) Bangalore (2020] 117 taxmann.com 520 (Bangalore - Trib.) 19. Mahendrasingh Ramsingh Jadav v. Income-tax Officer (2021] 125 taxmann. com 434 (Bangalore - Trib.) 20. H.H. Acharya Swami Ganeshdasji V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [2001] 119 Taxman 146 (Mum.) (Mag.) 21. Praveen

M/S Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations in India, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed and additions amounting to Rs

ITA 710/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Federation Of Freight Forwarders Associations, 311/313, Mahinder Chambers, W.T. Patil Marg, Opp. Dukes Factory, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aaatf0039J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(3), Piramal Chambers 4Th Floor, Dr. S.S. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Indira Adakil, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 2Section 2(15)

favour of assessee]” [2016] 71 taxmann.com 138 (Delhi - Trib.), IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'G' Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers v. Income-tax Officer, (Exemption), Trust Ward-II, Delhi “Section 2(15), read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act,1961 - Charitable purpose (Object of general public utility) - Assessment

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

456/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2008-09) & C.O. No. 180/Mum/2018 M/s. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., 151 were lightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Both of them appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under these provisions as of little importance. They have substituted