“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

Shree Jagadguru Mouneshwar Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Kerur, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1623/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Udupi and others and (Kar-HC) 2015 ITL 152 (2015) 230 Taxman 309 Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd V/s Income-Tax Officer Ward-V, Tumkur and it is eligible for deduction. 5. The ld AO held that With regard to submission of the assessee that the co- operative ... find that the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer Word-V, Tumkur [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka)/[2015] 230 Taxman 309 (Karnataka)[28-10-2014] has categorically discussed this issue and held that assessee is eligible

Vijaya Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Years 2022-23 Appellant / Assessee Vijaya Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Society, R No 1, 67, Ii Floor, K H Road Shantinagar Bangalore 560027 Karnataka Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (2) (3) Bmtc Building Koramangala Bangalore 560095 Pan Aaaav4696A For Appellant Shri Prasanna N Uralal Advocate For Respondent Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Date Of Hearing 04-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15-12-2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

profits and gains of business' as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars, Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka. [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC). Such interest income could not be said to be attributable to the activities of the society, namely, carrying ... further relied up on decision of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative sale society Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka (Supra) to hold that that the source of income is not relevant for deciding the applicability of section 80P would not be correct because

Sreesharada Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Udupi vs. ITO Ward- 1&Tps, Udupi

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

find that the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer Word-V, Tumkur [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka)/[2015] 230 Taxman 309 (Karnataka)[28-10-2014] has categorically discussed this issue and held that assessee is eligible ... Thus, all the three decisions of the honourable Karnataka High court considered the decision of Totgars, Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC)/ [2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC)/ [2010] 229 CTR 209 (SC) [08-02-2010]. All the above three decisions

Sreesharada Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Udupi vs. ITO Ward- 1&Tps, Udupi

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80

Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Durg vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 744/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 154(2)(B)Section 154(8)Section 155Section 186Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

same has been filed within time and is otherwise in order.- Circular: No. 68, dated 17-11- 1971. Action by Assessing Officers- Income-tax Officers are authorised to take action under section 154, or to admit or dispose of on merits applications under section 154 filed by assessees seeking relief

Techno Residency Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5742/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249Section 271(1)(b)Section 69ASection 80P

Assessee placed on record the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. Income-tax Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bombay)/[2025] 307 Taxman 367 (Bombay)[13-10-2025] along with other judicial ... Assessee had placed before us the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. Income-tax Officer, International Tax, Ward-1(1)(1), Mumbai [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bombay)/[2025] 307 Taxman 367 (Bombay)[13-10-2025]. In that case in identical facts

Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 630/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.630/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Om Hospital Campus, Beside H P Petrol Pump, Raipura-492001, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aeppa8584E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR

Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2025 2 Vinod Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT ... added to the total income of the assessee. In this regard, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this 3 Vinod Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide

Prabhat Mishra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.509/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prabhat Mishra, B-07 Sahyadri Apartment, Ip Extension East Delhi, Delhi, 110092 Pan: Apapm0887N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Golchha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR

Section 69A

Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2025 2 Prabhat Mishra, Delhi Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT ... fully explain the deposits. 5. The orders passed are unjust, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 3 Prabhat Mishra, Delhi Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur I reserve my right to add, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by

Section 143(3)Section 263

clear that the pre- requisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by 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. 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 recours3 cannot

Kanchanba Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Ac/DCIT. Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1566/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(7)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

best a procedural omission and cannot be an impediment to claiming exemption. In the case of Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 922 (Gujarat)[30-04-2025], the High Court held that Filing of Form 10B is only a procedural requirement

Tejash Mahendrabhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambletejash Mahendrabhai Patel, Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 1, Ambika Bhuvan, Ward-5, Sathi Society, B/H Hotel Pooja Anand International, Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001 [Pan : Ahepp 4777 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Tejash Mahendrabhai Patel, Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 1, Ambika Bhuvan, Ward-5, Sathi Society, B/h Hotel Pooja Anand International, Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001 [PAN : AHEPP 4777 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant

Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2204/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Vs Ito Ward-10(2), Kolkata C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aahca 2447 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 22.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Impugned Assessment Order Would Not Survive, Insofar As In The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Against The Said Assessment Order, The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Has Categorically Held That The Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act, Dated 20.06.2022 Which Is Culminated In The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2022, Which Is An Impugned Assessment Order Would Not Survive, Insofar As Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act Was Not In Conformity With The Cbdt Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/Ita-Ii Dated 23-06-2017. It Was The Submission That As Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal

For Respondent: None

Section 12ESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

accruing on doubtful debts is credited to a suspense account, It need not be included in the assessee's taxable income, provided the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that recovery is practically improbable. Twenty-six years later, on June 20, 1978, in view of the judgment of the Kerala High

Mercy Chandira, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CITFor Respondent: 08.12.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

noted (supra) the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (Single Bench) order in the case of Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, held in favour of Revenue, was reversed by the Hon’ble Division Bench by order dated 24.06.2025 by holding as under: This appeal impugns an order

Dhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambledhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 505, Padshani Pole, Kalupur, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad-380001 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aadcd 8007 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 505, Padshani Pole, Kalupur, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad-380001 Ahmedabad [PAN : AADCD 8007 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Divetia

Shramik Vikas Sansthan, Vadodara vs. The Incometax Officer (Exemption) Ward Exemption Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleshramik Vikas Sansthan, The Income-Tax Officer Vs. 1, Shram Sadhna, (Exemption), Opp. Police Ground, Raopura, Ward Exemption, Vadodara-390001 Vadodara [Pan : Aaats 7052 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Veparai, Ar Respondent By: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Veparai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shramik Vikas Sansthan, The Income-Tax Officer Vs. 1, Shram Sadhna, (Exemption), Opp. Police Ground, Raopura, Ward Exemption, Vadodara-390001 Vadodara [PAN : AAATS 7052 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hiren

Ramsinhji Meraji Vanzara, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1449/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Jagrat Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uady Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 250Section 270Section 54BSection 54B(1)

Year : 2018-19 - 6– i. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shankar Lal Saini [2018] 89 taxmann.com 235 (Rajasthan) ii. Jobanji Thakor v. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann.com 62 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) iii. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra (HUF) [ITA No. 805/Ahd/2023 ... Manilal Dasbhai Makwana v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Ahmedabad [2018] 96 taxmann.com 219 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) v. Dr. Dharmista Mehta v. Income-tax Officer [2022] 144 taxmann.com 136 (Mumbai – Trib.) vi. Uddhav Krishna Bankar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(4), Pune [2020] 121 taxmann.com 53 (Pune – Trib

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Pragnapur Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, the grounds Nos. 1 to 12 are partly allowed

ITA 441/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

appellant have also been perused and taken in considering before deciding the issue. Further, In the case of S.P. Balasubramaniyam vs. Income-tax Officer [2013] 37 taxmann.com 260 (Chennai - Trib.)/[2013] 24 ITR(T) 47 (Chennai - Trib.)/[2013] 144 ITD 525 (Chennai - Trib.)[29-04-2013], the Hon’ble ITAT

Dileep Kumar Sakamuri Chenchu Venkata, Srikalahasti vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1615/HYD/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234CSection 23BSection 250Section 69A

would further observe that the Hon’ble High Court of Jurisdiction in its order in the case of Yashnu Yasasvi Polucherla Vs. Income-tax Officer (2025) 179 taxmann.com 470 (Telangana), had held that as its earlier order in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO & 2 Others (supra

Manikumari Samanchi, Zaheerabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1345/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14BSection 69A

Manikumari Samanchi, Zaheerabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1344/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14BSection 69A