“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

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 127/ALLD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

additional evidence at appellate stage without appreciating that the purpose of rule 46A is to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the Income-tax Officer as held in Rajkumar Srimal 102 ITR 525 (Call), Ganpatrai & Sons Ltd. 24 ITR 362 (Bom). 13. That the appellant craves the leave

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 126/ALLD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 125/ALLD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs. DCIT(C.C.), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 101/ALLD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad vs. Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 65/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad vs. Vijay Stone Products, Sonebhadra

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 64/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 33/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 32/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 31/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 30/ALLD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

M/S Jai Maa Sharda Service Station, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 25/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

M/S Jai Maa Sharda Service Station, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 24/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

M/S Subhash Stone Product Private Limited, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 108/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Subhash Stone Product (P) Ltd., Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 107/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh

Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Uppalapadu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

ITA 523/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.523/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Uppalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-2(1), Society Limited, Guntur. Uppalapadu, Guntur. Pan: Aaaau4669G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती Shri R. Siva Rama Krishna, "ारा/Assessee By: Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Ito

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

notice was not issued by obtaining approval from the competent authority. 3. The notice u/s 148 dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Income-Tax officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur, is invalid for the reason that the notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of by the National Faceless

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 472/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 DCIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Motion Education Limited, 394, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota Private स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAICM4637L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Motion Limited, CO. Nos.20 & 21/JP/2025 (Arising out of ITA. Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 &

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 153A

regard DCIT vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs Income-tax Officer (2022) 136 taxmann.com 24 (Bombay) [2022] 440(TR 359 (Bombay) is relevant. In that case Hon'ble High Court held as under

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 455/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 153A

455/JP/2025 DCIT vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs Income-tax Officer (2022) 136 taxmann.com 24 (Bombay) [2022] 440(TR 359 (Bombay) is relevant. In that case Hon'ble High Court held as under

Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar Seti Sahakari Pathsansta Marayadit, Nashik vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1625/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1625/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Pathsanstha S. Income Tax Department, Maryadit, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society

Shri Chintamani Parshwanath Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5038/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J. Kala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virbhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)

TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Chintamani Parshwanath Income-tax Officer, Exemption, Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Ward 2(3), Mumbai Sangh Jain Mandir, Aarey Road West, Beside Rajasthan Hall, Vs. Goregaon, Mumbai – 400062. (PAN: AAATS2128R) (Appellant

Vaishali Umesh Naik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3740/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Vaishali Umesh Naik Income-Tax Officer, 1052, Diwale Koliwada, Nr Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai Darga Post, Kokan Bhavan, Vs. Income-Tax Office, Vashi Sector 14, Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Navi Mumbai- 400703 Pan: Aeapn4619L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla Revenue By : Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Cit(A)) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, Agreement For Sale Of Property Under Consideration I.E. Flat No. 302, 3Rd Floor, Meridian Meadows, Navi Mumbai, Which Was Purchased On Total Consideration Of Rs. 85,00,000/- Showing Joint Ownership Of The Assessee & Her Husband, Was Registered With The Registration Authority On Dated 29.10.2015. The Assessing Officer (Ao) By Noticing The Facts & Examining The Bank Statement Of Assessee’S Husband Mr. Umesh

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 148Section 250Section 69

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vaishali Umesh Naik Income-tax Officer, 1052, Diwale Koliwada, NR Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai Darga Post, Kokan Bhavan, Vs. Income-tax Office, Vashi Sector 14, Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai