← 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

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

Malhotra ITO Vs Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) (Copy enclosed) where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the intimation which the Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b). 16 CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. M9991

Meha Daga, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2033/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ashu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR
Section 5(1)

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Meha Daga, vs. Income-tax Officer, H.No. 703, Block Kings I, Ward 1(4), Faridabad. Royal Retreat Suraj Kund Road, Charmwood Village, Faridabad. PAN : ASLPD5342B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashu

Jansampark Advertising & Marketing P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(2) (Now Ward-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3132/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-3132/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Vs. Income-tax Officer, P. Ltd., C/o Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward 4(2), New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. PAN No. AAACJ9115G Appellant Respondent Assessee

Hari Machines Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 213/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Hari Machines Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4, Scindia House, Connaught Circle-11(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaach0868C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37(1)

Income-tax Department as interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The claim so made was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and that rejection affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, however, on a further appeal ... assessee in default in respect of the tax. Such person, however, is not liable to a penalty under Section 221, if the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that the failure to deduct or remit was for good and sufficient reasons. Sub-section (1A) of Section 201 without prejudice

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 19/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6953/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5538/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5994/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2260/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

M/S Expeditors International (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2242/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer. This Court further observed that there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case

ITO, Ward- 4(1), New Delhi vs. Baba Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 595/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Singh Dahia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. P.C. Yadav, Advocate
Section 268A

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income-tax Officer, vs. Baba Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ward 4(1), New Delhi. B-3, M-Block, AVG Bhawan Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AACCB7329N (Appellant) (Respondent

Nkb Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Rewari vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

which is not permitted under the Income Tax proceedings. The Id PCIT is a senior officer and plays a supervisory role on the Income-tax officer working below him therefore, it is expected from him that he should find specific error in the assessment order and let it know ... Income-tax officer rather than to use probability and guess work. It is necessary for the Id PCIT to point out exact error in the assessment order proposed to be revised by him as held in CIT v. GK Kabra, Co-operative Industrial Estate [1994] 75 Taxman 503 (AP). Thus

Akhil Taneja, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2725/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh Dahia, Sr.DR
Section 5(1)

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Akhil Taneja, vs. Income-tax Officer, C/o Kapil Goel Advocate, Ward 1(1), Gurgaon Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi. PAN : AETPT4163Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Jagdish Singh Dahia

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2059/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

stood rebutted by the fact that there was no suppression of any sales or inflation of any purchases. The mere fact that the Income-tax Officer proceeded to estimate the net profit at a figure higher than that what was disclosed by the assessee, would not lead to the conclusion

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Integer Leasing & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2575/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[A.Y 2006-07]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2006-07] The Income-tax Officer Vs. M/s Integer Leasing & Finance Ward -12(3) Co, Pvt Ltd, 2, Pal Mohan New Delhi Apartment, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh [W], New Delhi

Arvind Kaushik, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1256/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Arvind Kaushik, vs. Income-tax Officer, WA-116, Shakarpur, Delhi. Ward 60(5), New Delhi. PAN : AJKPK8536G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sameer Kapoor, Advocate Respondent by: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr.DR Date

Modern Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7624/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Modern Overseas Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer, 11027-A, Motia Khan, Ward 17(1), New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AAACM8982G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Respondent