“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

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

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

ITA 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

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

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

throw fruitful result. This view has been upheld by the ITAT in the case of Pangea3 & Legal Database Systems Pvt Ltd v. Income-tax Officer reported in[2017] 79 taxmann.com 303 (Mumbai - Trib.). This Hon’ble Tribunal has also allowed adjustments in the case of tested party in the following ... Delhi - Trib.), Gates Unitta India Company (P) Ltd reported in[2017] 84 taxmann.com 69 (Chennai - Trib.), Pangea3 & Legal Database Systems Pvt Ltd v. Income-tax Officer reported in[2017] 79 taxmann.com 303 (Mumbai - Trib.) in support of its contentions. 48. The learned DR relied on the order

St. Francis De Sales Church Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT -9 (CPC), Banglore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 1996/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh() & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 11Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)

condonation of delay is not the length of delay but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 403 (Karnataka) Mrs. PremalathaPagariavs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Bangalore* 8. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as long

Anjan Shivaraju Prakash, Mumbai vs. ITO, -6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5083/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 250Section 54

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.5083/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2013-14) AnjanShivraju Prakash vs Income-tax Officer-16(1)(1) 4th A-42, Floor, Maimoon Mumbai Apartments CHS, Plot No.78, Palkhi Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 PAN : ADDPA7615H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Bangalore vs. Dr. Sunitha Agarwal, Bangalore

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

ITA 519/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Dr. Sunitha Agarwal, The Income-Tax Officer, No. 15, Eagle Street, Ward – 2(3)(4), Langford Town, Bangalore. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacpa7991G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “I) The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,64,63,000/-. Ii) The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Consider The Fact That The Self Made Vouchers & Case Sheets Of The Patient Do Not Prove The Genuineness Of The Transaction In Absence Of Such Confirmation By The Patient & Therefore They Do Not Prove The Identity Of The Creditor Of Advance Also. Iii) The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Has Failed To Establish That The Advances Are Recognized As Revenue Is Subsequent Years. Iv) For These & Such Other Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing It Is Prayed That The Order Of Assessing Officer Be Upheld & That Of The Ld.Cit(A) Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: None

BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dr. Sunitha Agarwal, The Income-tax Officer, No. 15, Eagle Street, Ward – 2(3)(4), Langford town, Bangalore. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AACPA7991G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue

Dy CIT-CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 797/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) आअसं. 798/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 799/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Limited, Marathon Futurex Mafatlal Mill Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aaacp-8032-E ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.P. Bairagra With Ms. Rupa Nanda ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’], For The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 147Section 148

Income-tax Act, 1961" 5. In Indian Eastern Newspaper Society's case (supra), the court further held that in every case, the Income-tax Officer must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note and whether in consequence

Dy CIT, CC-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Marathon Nextgen Realty Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 797/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra with Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 147Section 148

M/S Govindram & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is also dismissed

ITA 1475/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35A

from the Investigation wing. First of all, no such complaint has been filed before the higher authorities regarding the pressure exerted upon by Income-tax officer, officials and secondly the entire affidavit has been filed on the advice of the consultant and not a single word has been referred that

M/S Govindram & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is also dismissed

ITA 1474/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35A

M/S Volvo India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Bangalore

ITA 1195/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT(DR)

Section 194CSection 194HSection 194ISection 194JSection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1195/Bang/2014 & Assessment year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income-tax Officer (TDS), Yalachahally Village, LTU, Bengaluru. Tavarakere Post, Hoskote Bengaluru-560 122. PAN – AAACV 6747 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S Parthasarthy, Advocate Revenue

Smt. Aruna Gulabchandra Gupta, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 114/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blesmt Aruna Gulab Chandra Gupta V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 3Rd Floor, Rustom Building 29 Room No. 120, 1St Floor Veer Nariman Road, Fort Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Mumbai - 400001 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aelpg7315P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai

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

High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Born) has held that: "the decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not made an elaborate discussion in this regard

R Govinde Gowda, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 366/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

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

Siddappa B T, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 363/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

ground that 61 per cent. of the school children are the children of the employees and the ex-employees of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the exemption as claimed. He, however, allowed 50 per cent, of the donation as deduction under section ... Revenue to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain a writ petition at the instance of an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Circle-I, Kakinada, challenging the notice for reassessment issued and served at the office of the assessee at Chagallu once again within

Rashmi Subhash Jha, Mumbai vs. ITO-29(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 782/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 90Section 90ASection 91

BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.782/Mum/2021 (Assessment year: 2017-18) Rashmi Subhash Jha vs Income-tax Officer-29(3)(1) B-601, Blissh CHSA Vasant Vihar Mumbai LBS Marg, Mulund (W) Mumbai-400 082 PAN : AKJPJ7705L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V CIT 243 ITR 83 has held that, "The Commissioner noted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the Income-tax Officer failed ... appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry. On these facts the conclusion that the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous is irresistible. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 2, Mumbai

In the result, and subject to the observations made in paragraph 7 above, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 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

ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Prisha Nova Realty P Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3975/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer Ward- M/S Prisha Nova Realty P. Ltd. 2(2)(4), Room No. 542, 5 Th 3Rd Floor, Mitha Mansion, 319, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhagat Singh Road, Opp. Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Market, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp8739L Appellant By : Shri V. Tripathi, Dr Respondent By : Shri Dr. P Daniel, Ar Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Tripathi, DRFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, AR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

hearing: 10.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the learned Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai [ The ld AO ] against the order passed by The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Where in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Income-tax Officer. This is obviously based on the principle that the taxpayer would not be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed ... record, or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law." If these conditions are satisfied then the Income-tax Officer would have complete jurisdiction to reopen the original assessment. It is obvious that where the Income Tax Officer gets no subsequent information, but merely

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148