“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

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

would be a finding. That certainly cannot be the intention of the legislature. The Madras High Court also in A.S. Khader Ismail v. Income-tax Officer, Salem [1963] 47 ITR 16 gave a very wide interpretation to that word, though it did not go so far as the Full Bench

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1185/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1185/Mum/2009 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Dcit-1(1) बिधम/ M/S. Acc Ltd. Room No.579, Aayakar Cement House, 121, M. K. Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1507C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms.Shailja Rai (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.11.2008 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -I Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2003- 04. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " L. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Directing To Delete The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unutilized Modvat Credit & Further In Directing To Allow The Relief Of Rs. 12,09,86,528/- Instead Of Rs. 3,21,85,825/-.” A.Y.2003-04 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition In Respect Of Corporation Tax Paid At Saudi Arabia Of Rs. 2,05,75,346/-.”

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms.Shailja Rai (DR)

Section 115JSection 154Section 251Section 80H

done to the assessee. On appeal to the Supreme Court held as under: 5 A.Y.2003-04 “…by his letter dated March 24, 1955, the Income-tax Officer virtually refused to carry out the directions which a superior tribunal had given him in exercise of its appellate powers in respect ... Appellate Tribunal having become final, it was not open to the Judicial Commissioner to hold that the order was wrong. As the Income-tax Officer had failed to carry out a legal duty imposed on him and such failure was destructive of a basic principle of justice, (emphasis

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 26/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 80I

VADILAL LALLUBHAI, AIR 1973 SC 1016, HANSRAJ & SONS VS. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR, AIR 2002 SC 2692, VIKRANT TYRES LTD. VS. THE FIRST INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MYSORE, JT 2001 (2) SC 45 PP. 459, 460: (2001) 3 SCC 76: AIR 2001 SC 800] [SEE: PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPREATION BY JUSTICE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 10/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 80I

Sri. Sandeep Srinivas, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 7/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha .R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sri Sandeep Srinivas, 3902, “Sri Krupa”, The Income-tax Officer, 23rd Main, BSK 2nd Stage, Ward – 7(2)(4), Vs. Bangalore – 560 070. Bangalore. PAN: AWTPS8789B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Prathibha .R, Advocate

Red Hat India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1379/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144B

Appellant craves to prefer an appeal against order dated 4 June 2021 passed by the Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’), under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) read with Section 144B

Mr.M J Aravind, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

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

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

held as follows : - "As regards the second contention, toe are in entire agreement with the learned solicitor-General when he says that the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that, he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted ... because it is equally clear that in making the assessment under sub-section (3) of 17 A.Y.2012-13 section 23 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure quess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must

Mr Kailash Kumar A Kothari, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai Q, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6171/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 68

VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.6171 /Mum/2019 (Assessment year : 2012-13) Mr. Kailashkumar A Kothari vs The Income-tax Officer 132A, New Urmi Building Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai 2nd Floor, Walkeshwar Road Mumbai-400 006 PAN : AAEPK4502D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

reproduced as under: “The clear import of section 23(4) is that on committing any one of the defaults mentioned therein the Income-tax Officer is bound to make the assessment to the best of his judgment. In other words, if a person fails to make the return required

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Smt. Sushila Sureshbabu Malge, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-23(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1681/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Smt. Sushila Sureshbabu Malge Income-Tax Officer, 206, Tulsi Shyam Building 7(3)(2) Teen Hath Naka, Vs. Mumbai Thane (W)-400 605 Appellant Respondent Pan : Ajtpm6884A Date Of Hearing .. 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement .. 23-12-2021 Date Of Corrigendum 15-02-2021 Corrigendum In Ita No.1681/Mum/2020 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Pronounced On 23.12.2021, The Assessee Has Submitted A Letter Dated 13Th January, 202, Where There Is An Error In Writing The Name Of Authorized Representative. Therefore, Now Following The Corrigendum Is Issued:-

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Smt. Sushila Sureshbabu Malge Income-tax Officer, 206, Tulsi Shyam Building 7(3)(2) Teen Hath Naka, Vs. Mumbai Thane (W)-400 605 Appellant Respondent PAN : AJTPM6884A Date of hearing .. 20-12-2021 Date ... issued:- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Smt. Sushila Sureshbabu Malge Income-tax Officer, 206, Tulsi Shyam Building 7(3)(2) Teen Hath Naka, Vs. Mumbai Thane (W)-400 605 Appellant .. Respondent PAN : AJTPM6884A Appellant by .. Shri Anil

ADIT Infratel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1658/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19 Adit Infratel Private Limited, Vs Income-tax Officer, A-45/27, DLF City Phase-I, Ward-1(1), New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. PAN- AABCL6812B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Sanjay Nath

Bhim Singh, Palwal vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Faridabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8450/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

BENCH “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bhim Singh S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Vs Income-tax Officer, Village: Amarpur, Distt. Palwal. Ward-1(2), Faridabad C/o D.C. Garg, CA 205, Sector 15A, Faridabad-121007. PAN- EOPPS6432P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri

Naresh Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8108/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)(d)

TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2016-17 Naresh Sharma Vs Income-tax Officer, Prop. Of Shiv Shakti Textiles, Ward-46(2), New Delhi 4280/2A, Jogiwara, Shiv Shakti Market, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006. PAN- ABDPS5862Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi

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

ITA 5326/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0828R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. Your Honors, reliance in this regard is also placed on the following judgments- • Balaram, Income-Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers and Others,- 1971 (8) TMI 3 - Supreme Court, Dated: - 05 August 1971 • "From what has been said ... Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Luxora Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. M/S. Luxora Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 804, 8Th Floor Soham House, Hari Om Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Opp. Eastern Express Highway Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(E), Mumbai – 400081 Pan: Aabco3197J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishore Dewani Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Kishore DewaniFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

income-tax V. Tania Investments (P.) Ltd 322 ITR 394 (Born) and the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of income-tax Officer 9(1)-1 v. Anant Shelters (P.) Ltd [2012] 20 taxmann.com 153 (Mum.) 2.4.10 It is also seen that the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench