← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Telecommunication Consultant India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3609/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

deeming provisions in the Act. There is, however, no express bar in law,, nor one by necessary implication, restricting the power of the Income-tax Officer to exclude the expenditure laid out or expended under section 10(2) (xv) of the 1922 Act. We are, therefore, unable to accede

Shivam Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-23(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 554/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority

Malik Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5494/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41Section 68

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Malik Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer, 2144, Turkman Gate, Delhi. Ward 16(2), New Delhi. PAN : AAACM1403C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date

Kavita Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

with also under the 1961 Act differently. Section 44 thereof, as noticed hereinbefore, begins with a non obstante clause. The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in passing the orders of assessment is limited. Keeping in view the fact that the business carried out by the assesse is not governed

M/S the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4535/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

with also under the 1961 Act differently. Section 44 thereof, as noticed hereinbefore, begins with a non obstante clause. The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in passing the orders of assessment is limited. Keeping in view the fact that the business carried out by the assesse is not governed

Encorp E-Service Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1883/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

assessment year 1976-77 the assessee changed the head of income from "other sources" to "business". This was not accepted by the 9 Income-tax Officer who taxed the hire charges as income from other sources. This was confirmed by the Tribunal. On a reference: Held:- that the assessee must

Encorp E-Service Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1882/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

assessment year 1976-77 the assessee changed the head of income from "other sources" to "business". This was not accepted by the 9 Income-tax Officer who taxed the hire charges as income from other sources. This was confirmed by the Tribunal. On a reference: Held:- that the assessee must

Bharti Airtel Ltd (Formerly Bharti Broadband Ltd), New Delhi vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3899/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148Section 16Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far 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

Modern Papers, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 139(5)

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Modern Papers, B-95, vs. Income-tax Officer, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Ward 34(3), New Delhi Delhi. PAN : AAFQM2930H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. S.S. Nagar, C.A. Respondent by: Sh. Sohail Malik ... 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

Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

circular are binding on the revenue authorities. He further relied on the decision of the coordinate bench [2013] 33 taxmann.com 611 (Panaji - Trib.) Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2, Margas, Goa v. Ms. Rania Faleiro wherein after considering the above circular the deduction is allowed to the assessee. He further stated ... tax v. D. Ananda Basappa* [2009] 180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka)/[2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar) [2009] 180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka) and G.Chinnadurai v. Income-tax Officer, Income-tax Department Non-Corporate Ward 13(2), Chenn 74 taxmann.com 227 (Madras). He submitted that facts of the case before us are identical

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

circular are binding on the revenue authorities. He further relied on the decision of the coordinate bench [2013] 33 taxmann.com 611 (Panaji - Trib.) Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2, Margas, Goa v. Ms. Rania Faleiro wherein after considering the above circular the deduction is allowed to the assessee. He further stated ... tax v. D. Ananda Basappa* [2009] 180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka)/[2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar) [2009] 180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka) and G.Chinnadurai v. Income-tax Officer, Income-tax Department Non-Corporate Ward 13(2), Chenn 74 taxmann.com 227 (Madras). He submitted that facts of the case before us are identical

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

circular are binding on the revenue authorities. He further relied on the decision of the coordinate bench [2013] 33 taxmann.com 611 (Panaji - Trib.) Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2, Margas, Goa v. Ms. Rania Faleiro wherein after considering the above circular the deduction is allowed to the assessee. He further stated ... tax v. D. Ananda Basappa* [2009] 180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka)/[2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar) [2009] 180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka) and G.Chinnadurai v. Income-tax Officer, Income-tax Department Non-Corporate Ward 13(2), Chenn 74 taxmann.com 227 (Madras). He submitted that facts of the case before us are identical

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise ... June, 1988 by the A.O. shall include (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise ... June, 1988 by the A.O. shall include (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise ... June, 1988 by the A.O. shall include (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise ... June, 1988 by the A.O. shall include (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise

Harsh Kumari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 53(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 882/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh.Mahesh Thakur,Sr.DR
Section 5(1)

Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 882/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Smt. Harsh Kumari Vs. Income-tax Officer, 40, Anand Lok, Ward 53(5) New Delhi Civic Centre PAN : AANPK3250H New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh.Mahesh Thakur,Sr.DR

Seema Thakur, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-45(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7292/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh Samkaria, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Mahesh Thakur,Sr.DR
Section 5(1)

Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7292/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Mrs. Seema Thakur Vs. Income-tax Officer, EA-174/2, Ward 45(3) Tagore Garden, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AEVPT9374D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Naresh Samkaria, CA Respondent

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

tax Officer in the process of assessment. There must be something in the assessment order to 7 Surjeet Auto Agency show that the Income-tax Officer applied his mind to the particular subject-matter or the particular source of income with a view to its taxability or to 'its taxability ... clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely

M/S vs. R Enterprises, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1855/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

cancelling the reassessment as both the grounds on which the reassessment notice was issued were not found to exist, and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer did not get jurisdiction to make the reassessment.” 6.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs., SNG Developers