← 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

Black Knight India Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on ground no

ITA 230/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 230/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Black Knight India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 6-3-1192-2-1, Htc Commissioner Of Towers, Kundanbagh, Income Tax, Begumpet, Circle – 1(1)(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Bangalore. Telangana – 500 016. Pan: Aaccl2956K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Ao In National E-Assessment For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment Order Dated 30 March 2021 (And Received By The Appellant On 30 March 2021) Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram
Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92C

March 2021 (and received by the Appellant on 30 March 2021) passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Page 2 of 7 IT(TP)A No. 230/Bang/2021 Centre, Delhi u/s 144 r.w.s 144C(13) and 144C(13) read with sections

B.R. Tv, Mumbai vs. Pt. CIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 750/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle–8,Room B.R. Tv G–38, Anand Villa,15Th Road, No.611, 6Th Floor, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai–400 054 Aykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb0941M

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

wherein it has been held that assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2017 by the Income-tax Officer 16(1)(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 02. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved and has raised following

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 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

Ashish Life Science P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-Circle-9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 964/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Cir, 9(1)(2) 210, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Through National Faceless Appeal Center Which Is Bad In Law & Invalid. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Without. Considering The Written Submissions Filed By The Appellant. As Such, The Order Is

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

judged from the view-point of the company itself and from the view-point of a prudent businessman. It is not for the Income-tax Officer to dictate what the business needs of the company should be. The term "benefit" to a company in relation to its business

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed. In either case whether the Income-tax Officer invokes his jurisdiction under Clause (a) or Clause (b) or both, the proceedings for bringing to tax an 'escaped assessment' can only commence ... regular manner under the Act. The expression "reassess" refers to a situation where an assessment has already been made but the Income-tax Officer has, on 10 A.Y. 2010-11 the basis of information in his possession, reason to believe that there has been under assessment on account

Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

ITA 696/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 80I

resulted in loss of revenue. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Max India Ltd. (supra) has held that, “when the 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 interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income- tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 10. The twine conditions sine

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1718/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Section 101ASection 143(3)Section 2(9)Section 3Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

transaction to be either prohibited or illegal occurring under a different statute over which, it has no control. In other words, the Income-tax Officer cannot declare a transaction as illegal under the provisions of the Insurance Act or the Regulations framed thereunder. The Income- tax Officer can examine ... magnitude of local retention as compared with the reinsurance premium paid by the Indian insurer to the foreign reinsurer and so on. The Income-tax Officers will, therefore, have to examine each case in the light of its facts and decide where tax liability is attracted, what portion

Infinity Optimal Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7715/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 148Section 43B

SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.7715 & 7716/Mum/2019 (Assessment years : 2011-12 & 2013-13) Infinity Optimal Solutions Pvt vs Income-tax Officer Ltd ITO-6(3)(2) 305, 3rd Floor, Morya Landmark Aayakar Bhavan I M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Off New Link Road, Andheri

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

primary facts." 21. As regards Scheme of the Act, the Apex Court held: "The Scheme of the law clearly is that where the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that an under-assessment has resulted from non-disclosure he shall have jurisdiction to start proceedings for reassessment within ... assessment has resulted from other causes he shall have jurisdiction to start proceedings for reassessment within 4 years. Both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under -assessment has resulted from non- disclosure of material facts, must co-exist before the Income

M/S Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 234Section 68

Pragati Financial Management P. Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 12 (Calcutta) it was held that even under unamended provisions of section 68, an income-tax officer was not precluded from making an inquiry as to true nature and source of sum found credited in books even if same was credited

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

assessee. On second appeal, the assessee contended that section 34 of the 1922 Act was not properly invoked in the case as the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make assessment; that the assessee was not carrying on business at Bombay; that the applicant was not a resident ... case held as under (Last Para) “The assessment being under Section 23(4) all that we are required to sae is whether the income-tax Officer's order was a reasonable order or he had made the assessment capriciously ---—.” 8.12 A reference to the judgment of Singh Engineering Works

Shri Shantilal S Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 3225/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 3225/मुं/2019(िन.व.2016-17) Shri Shantilal S Jain, Huf Vs The Income-Tax Officer-19(3)(3) M/S Sundeshwar Steel Industries Matru Mandir, Room No.219 (Prop. Shri Shantilal S. Jain Huf) Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 36/40, Room No.34, Hinglaj Bhavan Gulalwadi, Mumbai-400 004 Pan : Aadpj0338F Appellant Respondent

Section 144

JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 3225/मुं/2019(िन.व.2016-17) Shri Shantilal S Jain, HUF vs The Income-tax Officer-19(3)(3) M/s Sundeshwar Steel Industries Matru Mandir, Room No.219 (Prop. Shri Shantilal S. Jain HUF) Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 36/40, Room No.34

The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Shelter Housing Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 2936/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 68

assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Therefore, according

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vyapar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7159/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Satyapraksh Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 106Section 132Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

word 'may'. This clearly indicates that the intention of Parliament in enacting section 69 was to confer a discretion on the Income-tax Officer in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee ... Income-tax Officer is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. The question whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or not under section

Gerah Entrprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 740/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gerah Enterprises P. Ltd. Tax, Range-20, 1, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Room No.611, 6Th Floor, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (2), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg7138C

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

tax Act, 1961 (the Act) holding that assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 13th December, 2017 by The Income-Tax Officer-7(1)(1), (the learned Assessing Officer) Mumbai for Assessment Year 2015-16 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Gerah

M/S. S.K. Ventures, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Thane

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

ITA 1167/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Pr. Commissioner Of M/S S.K. Ventures Income Tax-3, 1, Ground Floor, Block No.1- 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Ashar It 25/145 Madhuban Hotel Park, Wagle, Industrial Vs. Road, Ulhasnagar, Kalyal, Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-421003 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadas2607K

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

wherein it has been held that assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the income-tax Act dated 27.12.2017 passed by the income-tax Officer, ward 2(4), Kalyan (the learned Assessing Officer) for Assessment Year 2015-16 is erroneous so far as, prejudicial to the interest

Mr. Pratapchand P. Purohit, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2) (5), Mumbai

ITA 1703/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Pratapchand P. Income Tax Officer- Purohit, 19(2)(5), Shop No.1, 25, Khambata Matru Mandir, Vs. Lane, Tardeo Road, Khetwadi Back Road, Mumbai – 400007 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aabpp3598B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. Ā.R. Date Of Hearing : 30 . 03 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 04 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: The Appellant, Mr. Pradeepchand P. Purohit (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessee’) By Filing The Present Appeal, Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Qua The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Grounds Inter Alia That :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. Ā.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

additional ground of appeal raised before him; he ought to have considered the said submissions and disposed of the appeal accordingly. 3. The Income-tax Officer - 19(2)(5), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellant contends that ... additional ground of appeal raised before him; he ought to have considered the said submissions and disposed of the appeal accordingly. 3. The Income-tax Officer - 19(2)(5), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellant contends that

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 270/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Under similar circumstances, the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogendrakumar Gupta v. Income-tax Officer [2014] 51 taxmann.com 383 (SC) has dismissed SLP against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO[20141 46 taxmann.com 56 (Guj.) wherein

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Under similar circumstances, the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogendrakumar Gupta v. Income-tax Officer [2014] 51 taxmann.com 383 (SC) has dismissed SLP against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO[20141 46 taxmann.com 56 (Guj.) wherein

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

Under similar circumstances, the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogendrakumar Gupta v. Income-tax Officer [2014] 51 taxmann.com 383 (SC) has dismissed SLP against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO[20141 46 taxmann.com 56 (Guj.) wherein