← 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

Nss Equipments India LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1394/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1394/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Nss Equipments India Llp, Shetty House, Panchsheel Nagar, Vasant Patil Marg, Sion, Chnabhatti, Mumbai 400 022. Pan: Aakfn-7271-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Cit, Cpc Bangalore, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 100. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 133 taxmann.com 172 (Jodh. -Trib.) (iii) Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer, 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyd.- Trib.) (iv) Bizviz Technologies Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 134 taxmann.com 350 (Bang. - Trib.) 4 (v) Flying Fabrication

Ajay Naresh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1873/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Ajay Naresh Aggarwal Vs Income-Tax Officer 6 & 7, Court House Circle 18(1), Mumbai L.T. Marg, Dhobi Talao Mumbai-400 002 Pan : Adopa5571B Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Ajay Naresh Aggarwal vs Income-tax Officer 6 and 7, Court House Circle 18(1), Mumbai L.T. Marg, Dhobi Talao Mumbai-400 002 PAN : ADOPA5571B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Sanjay

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 798/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)

BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A No.797/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2014-15 I.T.A No.798/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2013-14 Rajeshkumar Chamaria vs Income-tax Officer-24(3)(5) C-6, Azad Apartment Room No.509, Piramal Chambers, Azad Road, Andheri West Lalbaug, Near Shopper’s Stop Mumbai-400012 Mumbai

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 797/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)

BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A No.797/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2014-15 I.T.A No.798/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2013-14 Rajeshkumar Chamaria vs Income-tax Officer-24(3)(5) C-6, Azad Apartment Room No.509, Piramal Chambers, Azad Road, Andheri West Lalbaug, Near Shopper’s Stop Mumbai-400012 Mumbai

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

19/05/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 30/10/2019, passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward 14(1)(3), Mumbai [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. Assessing Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass

First Credit Ites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt.Dy/CIT/ITO, National E -Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1183/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am First Credit Ites P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner Of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National E-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aabcf5210B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM First Credit ITES P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National e-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AABCF5210B Assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1, Bellary vs. M/S Auro Minerals, Hospet

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1543/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

assessee to adduce evidence to controvert the recitals made therein. 24. We would also like to observe that even if the Income-tax Officer considered the material placed before him by the assessee to be unreliable keeping in view the comparative statement of accounts of the previous years, he could

M/S Auro Minerals, Hospet vs. Joint Commissionerof Income Tax Bellary Range, Bellary

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1329/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

assessee to adduce evidence to controvert the recitals made therein. 24. We would also like to observe that even if the Income-tax Officer considered the material placed before him by the assessee to be unreliable keeping in view the comparative statement of accounts of the previous years, he could

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Energy Ventures Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partially allowed

ITA 1511/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 The Income-tax Officer, Vs. M/s Bharat Energy Ventures Pvt. Ward-1(1)(3), Ltd., Bengaluru. No.64, Church Street, Bengaluru-560 015. PAN – AABCB 6642 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

Company" or "the Appellant"), respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "learned AO"] dated 30 April 2021 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C

Aevitas Pharmagro Tech P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.1675/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Aevitas Pharmagro Tech Private Limited, B2-210, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 072. Pan: Aaacp-6240-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cpc) Bengaluru -560 500. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Milan Dattani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Milan DattaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 133 taxmann.com 172 (Jodh. -Trib.) (iii) Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer, 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyd.- Trib.) (iv) Bizviz Technologies Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 134 taxmann.com 350 (Bang. - Trib.) (v) Flying Fabrication v. Deputy

Masthi Gowda P, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 367/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

makes it clear that the prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo moto under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely ... erroneous; and(ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent -- if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue-- recourse cannot

Manjunatha, K R Pet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 364/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

makes it clear that the prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo moto under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely ... erroneous; and(ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent -- if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue-- recourse cannot

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of General Electoral trust Vs Income-tax Officer, Mumbai reported in 289 CTR 284 (Bom). The relevant funding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “7. Mere non filing of return ... relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “21. Contention of the petitioner that the transfer by Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Noida to Income-Tax Officer, Ward-58 (2), Delhi required an order under Section 127 of the Act is fallacious and without merit

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

authorise any Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, or (B) such Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, or Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Assistant Director ... Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, (the officer so authorised in all cases being hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) to— (i) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other

Apurva Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 8(2) (Erstwhile ACIT, Cent. Cir. - 45), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 720/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

appeal before it must deal with questions of law and fact which arise out of the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot assume powers which are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or its scheme

Kishore Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5469/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

appeal before it must deal with questions of law and fact which arise out of the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot assume powers which are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or its scheme

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5468/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

appeal before it must deal with questions of law and fact which arise out of the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot assume powers which are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or its scheme

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5467/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

appeal before it must deal with questions of law and fact which arise out of the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot assume powers which are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or its scheme

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5466/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

appeal before it must deal with questions of law and fact which arise out of the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It cannot assume powers which are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act or its scheme