← 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

Jambo Credit and Thrift Co-Operative Society Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 1109/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

For Appellant: Ms. Apksha Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

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, viz., carrying ... business of providing credit facilities to its members. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars, Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka (supra) held in para 11 as under: "To say that the source of income is not relevant for deciding the applicability of section

Navdurga Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 219/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC). 13. Apropos, the merits of the case, we find that it is the claim of the assessee firm

Navdurga Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 218/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC). 13. Apropos, the merits of the case, we find that it is the claim of the assessee firm

Gupta Subhash & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 34(3), Delhi, Civic Centre

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

ITA 610/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhiraja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Tribunal, however, appears to have been influenced by the suspicions, conjectures and 13 surmises which were freely indulged in by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and arrived at its own conclusion, as it were, by a rule of thumb holding without any proper materials before ... back of The lower authorities in the its mind the various probabilities which had present case have accepted been referred to by the Income-tax Officer as the cash sales, which was above it could not have come to the duly declared in the books of conclusion it did that

Harish Kumar Chandnani, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer -3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 107/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Assessment Order u/s 144 r.ws, 147 be weata oat Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Office of the Income-tax Officer- 3(1) Metro Walk Building, 2’ Floor, Room No. 224, E-5, Arera Colom Bittan Market, Bho) 1, Madhya Pradesh- 462016 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 1 | Name

Dipika Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 50(2), Now Ward 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 50(2) Dipika Singh Now Word 50(1), Bhatendra East Raypara Uttarpan, Manicktala Civic Rajarhat, Barasat, Vs. Centre, Kolkata-700067, Kolkata-700135, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bllps4355P Assessee By : S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Anirban Gupta, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: S/ Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Ms. Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 145(3)Section 69A

mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single ... could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination noted, - this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in suspicion, conjectures and surmises

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1708/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

setting aside the assessment order." c) The Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of ‘S.K. Bothra & Sons, HUF v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-46(3), Kolkata 347 ITR 347’ wherein the Court held as follows: “15. It is now a settled law that while considering the question whether

M/S. Ambattur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2601/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ambattur Developers Private Limited, (Amalgamated With Ambattur Hotels Private Limited) No. 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaeca-7490-D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corporate Ward- 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. Bipin, C.N., Cit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 11.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi, (In Short Ld.Cit(A)) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Vide Order Dated 12.08.2024. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

this issue is already dealt by the Raipur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chhattisgarh Metaliks and Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs Income-tax Officer reported in [2023] 147 taxmann.com 441 (Raipur - Trib.). Specific reference is as under: “14. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the contentions

Iqbal Maenuddin Shaikh, Mumbbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward22(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 5584/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriIqbal Maennuddin ShaikhFor Respondent: Shri Veerabhadra S Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

MUMBAI BEFORESHRI.VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.5584/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Iqbal Maenuddin Shaikh vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-22(1)(6), 2D, Room No.107, PMGP Mumbai, Colony, Near Dharavi Bus PIramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Depo, Sion, Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai ... short, ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2013-14, date of order 22/01/2020. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Income-tax Officer-21(1)(5), Mumbai[for brevity, the “Ld.AO”], order passed u/s 143(3), date of order 21/03/2016. 2 Iqbal Maenuddin Shaikh 2. When the appeal was called

Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 9/301, Vijay Park Ghodbunder (International Taxation)- Road, Kasarvadavli, Thane, Vs 4(2)(1), Mumbai - 400601 Mumbai (Pan : Bscps9388A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Shri Rajesh Poojary & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Passed Under The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2024-25/1070521602(1), Dated 21.11.2024, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Reassessment Proceedigns: 1.1 The Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Thane ("The J.A.O.") Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 28Th March 2023 & Issuing Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 29Th March 2023 In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act Read With E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 2 Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Ay 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Shri Rajesh Poojary and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

invoking of reopening proceedings by issuing notice u/s. 148, the assessment proceedings were completed and the impugned assessment order was passed by the Income-tax Officer (International Tax), Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai, vide order dated 17.12.2024. It is asserted that the jurisdiction over the assessee was always with International ... ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 553 (Bom) whereby it was held that where an assessee was a non- resident, jurisdiction would lie with Income-tax Officer (International Taxation) and the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 148A(b). He also referred to the decision of Coordinate Bench

Khurshid Ahmad Dar, Jammu and Kashmir, India vs. ITO Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

been served on 13.04.2021 and thus, the amended law not been followed by the AO. 8. In the case of Sharad Garg vs. Income-tax Officer [2022] 136taxmann.com 360 [287 Taxman 207] (Delhi), head note reads as follows: z 6 Section 148, read with section 149, of the Income-tax ... through e-mail on 6-4-2021 the same was time barred and therefore liable to be quashed. 10. Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. Income-tax Officer [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi)/[2023] 290 Taxman 493(Delhi) [2022] 449 ITR 517 [27.09.2022] Head note reads as follows: Section 149, read with

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible ... Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated

Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2744/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali International Tax, B 1502 Tower 1 Ward-1(2)(1), Lbs Marg, Vikas Paradise, Mumbai Mulund West, Vs. Mumbai – 400080 (Pan: Anjpb5957H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Siddharth Srivastava, Ca Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 28Section 41(1)Section 68

against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 55, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1062814866(1), dated 18.03.2024 passed against the assessment order by Income-tax Officer (International Taxation)-1(2)(1), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated

Pcl Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4619/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR.)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.4619/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) PCL Estates Private Limited vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(1), Plot No.219, Laalasis, 11th Mumbai Road, Chembur East, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 City, Maharashtra-400 071 PAN: AAACP6943L

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3907/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

statements, which are retracted subsequently, do not form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income of a Company.. …”  Gajjam Chinna Yellappa vs. Income-tax Officer [2015] 370 ITR 671 [Andhra Pradesh and Telangana -06.11.2014] “The Act empowers the Assessing Officers or other authorities to record the statements

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3906/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

statements, which are retracted subsequently, do not form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income of a Company.. …”  Gajjam Chinna Yellappa vs. Income-tax Officer [2015] 370 ITR 671 [Andhra Pradesh and Telangana -06.11.2014] “The Act empowers the Assessing Officers or other authorities to record the statements

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Thakor Legal Heir Narendakumar Khodaji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 948/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.948/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Ward-4(2)(1) बनाम/ Thakor V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Legal Heir Narendrakumar Khodaji Thakor Ahmedabad – 382 481 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afwpt 1453 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

completed against a deceased person are a nullity and without jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer [(2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Guj)] categorically held that a notice issued under section 148 of the Act in the name of a deceased person ... fundamental defect because that provision applies only to a living assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also upheld this legal principle. In Income-tax Officer v. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai [2021] 131 taxmann.com 40 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision holding that

Income Tax Officer 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Sureshkumar Bhikalal Thakker, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

ITA 1593/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69A

surrounding facts and conduct of the assessee defy commercial logic and human probability. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Poddar v. Income-tax Officer [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)/[2020] 268 Taxman 320 (SC) dismissed the SLP against the findings of the Delhi High Court and ITAT that ... above legal principles have been consistently followed by various judicial authorities, including Kaushik Chandravadan Parikh v. ACIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 694 (Mumbai - Trib.), Income-tax Officer v. Neetaben Snehalkumar Patel [2024] 167 taxmann.com 660 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), Shailesh K. Patel (HUF) v. ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 669 (Ahmedabad - Trib

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value. Similarly, the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel v. Income-tax Officer [2025] 179 taxmann.com 408 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) has held that the Assessing Officer, being a non-technical authority, cannot reject the valuation given by a registered