← 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

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

their Lordships have held while interpreting section 147 as it stood in the assessment year 1963-64:- “. . An Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only if on the basis of specific, reliable ... different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Shri Satbir Singh, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 3424/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/ DRFor Respondent: Sh. K. Sampath, C.A. &
Section 268A

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘ G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income-tax Officer, vs. Satbir Singh Ward 4(1), Gurgaon. S/o Shri Maha Singh, R/o Vill. Nakhrola, Teh. Manesar, Gurgaon. PAN : AAOPY3440Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Shri Satya Pal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 3423/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/ DRFor Respondent: Sh. K. Sampath, C.A. &
Section 268A

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘ G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income-tax Officer, vs. Satya Pal Ward 4(1), Gurgaon. S/o Shri Maha Singh, R/o Vill. Nakhrola, Teh. Manesar, Gurgaon. PAN : AACPY7890A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Sh. Raj Singh, Haryana

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 3421/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/DR &For Respondent: Sh. K. Sampath, C.A. &
Section 268A

TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘ G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income-tax Officer, vs. Raj Singh, Ward 3(4), Gurgaon. S/o Late Sh. Manohar Lal, VPO- Kakhrola, Teh. Manesar, Gurgaon. PAN : BJDPS1075G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant

Shri Udayveer, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 3751/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/ DR
Section 5(1)

DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Udayveer, vs. Income-tax Officer, Village & Post Makiyali, Ward 2(4), Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar. PAN : ADLPU0564B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Deepak Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. H.K. Choudhary

Hanish Singla, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Faridabad

In the result, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and quashed the reopening of the assessment

ITA 1740/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 40

bring undisclosed income of Rs. 11,13,955/- to tax for the AY 2008-09. (Parmod Pal Singh) Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Faridabad 4 ITA.No 1740/Del./2019 5. Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that all facts have been disclosed fully and truly for the purpose of assessment

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. the Indian News Paper Society, New Delhi

ITA 116/DEL/2017[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Garg, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

5208/Del/2012). The aforesaid order dated 20.06.2013 of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi, in assessee’s own case has also been reported in Income-tax Officer v. Indian Newspapers Society [2013] 37 taxmann.com 401 (Delhi-Trib.); the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: “4. Briefly suited, the facts ... premises of the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority to verify tax deduction at source compliance. 5. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer (TDS)-3(4), Mumbai, wrote a letter dated March 16. 20i I to the assessee addressed to the Mumbai address as to why the TDS has not been deducted

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. Gee Kay Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd

ITA - 935 / 2009HC Delhi08 Feb 2018
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 68

before issuance of a notice under section 148 by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer may be of the rank of an Income-tax officer or the Astt. Commissioner or the Dy. Commissioner, but when such notice is to be issued after the expiry of four years after

Honey Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA - 163 / 2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act would be made in cases where the Assessee furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer as to the genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee. And, the Assessee further satisfies the Income-tax Officer that payment

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Honey Enterprises

ITA - 537 / 2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act would be made in cases where the Assessee furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer as to the genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee. And, the Assessee further satisfies the Income-tax Officer that payment

Commr. of Income Tax vs. Honey Enterprises

ITA - 260 / 2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act would be made in cases where the Assessee furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer as to the genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee. And, the Assessee further satisfies the Income-tax Officer that payment

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Ms Suman Dhamija

ITA - 21 / 2003HC Delhi08 Dec 2015

arbitrator and a sum of Rs. 12,276 out of that amount which had already been assessed to tax. The Income-tax Officer treated the sum as liable to income-tax during that year on the basis that the income accrued to the assessee on the date of the award

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Ms. Suman Dhamija

ITA - 20 / 2003HC Delhi08 Dec 2015

arbitrator and a sum of Rs. 12,276 out of that amount which had already been assessed to tax. The Income-tax Officer treated the sum as liable to income-tax during that year on the basis that the income accrued to the assessee on the date of the award

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA - 1109 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

does not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of Section 34(1), but where on the evidence and the materials produced the Income-tax Officer could have reached a conclusion other than one which he has reached, a proceeding under Section 34(1)(a) will not lie merely ... ground that the Income-tax Officer has raised an inference which he may later regard as erroneous.” 30. The above decisions were followed in ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 1 (SC). 31. Turning to the decisions of this Court, in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishsht Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA - 1108 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

does not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of Section 34(1), but where on the evidence and the materials produced the Income-tax Officer could have reached a conclusion other than one which he has reached, a proceeding under Section 34(1)(a) will not lie merely ... ground that the Income-tax Officer has raised an inference which he may later regard as erroneous.” 30. The above decisions were followed in ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 1 (SC). 31. Turning to the decisions of this Court, in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company

Director of Income Tax vs. Jet Lite (India) Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 205 / 2002HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

deducted at source by the Assessee, the question of grossing up under Section 195-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer did not arise? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the payments made by the Assessee towards reserve funds

Jet Lite (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- Xvi

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 204 / 2002HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

deducted at source by the Assessee, the question of grossing up under Section 195-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer did not arise? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the payments made by the Assessee towards reserve funds

M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- II

ITA - 124 / 2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

clear that the prerequisite to 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

M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -II

ITA - 83 / 2003HC Delhi09 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr SalilAggarwal, Mr Ravi Pratap Mall andFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing counsel with
Section 10ASection 260ASection 263Section 80H

clear that the prerequisite to 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

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Sri Chand Gupta

ITA - 18 / 2002HC Delhi31 Jul 2015
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 132BSection 154Section 234ASection 260A

assets to the person from whose custody they were seized: Provided that if, after taking into account the materials available with him, the Income-tax Officer is of the view that it is not possible to ascertain to which particular previous year or years such income or any part thereof ... made satisfactory arrangements for payments of all the amounts referred to in clauses (ii), (iia) and (iii) or any part thereof, the Income-tax Officer may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, release the assets or such part thereof as he may deem