← 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

Amit Suresh Agrawal, Satara vs. ITO Ward-2, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2225/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

therefore bad in law. 4. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by the JAO (Income-tax Officer Ward-2, Satara). Such issuance of notice is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore

Dharapuram Public Servents Co-Op Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Tirupur

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

ITA 2148/CHNY/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2148/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court rendered in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., v. Income-tax Officer, Karnataka, wherein the issue came up for consideration as to whether the interest income received by a Co-operative Bank from its members

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

ITA 1899/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dlf Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dlf Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. La Solitaire Jewels Private Limited, Delhi

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradeputy Commissioner Of Vs La Solitaire Jewels Income Tax, Private Limited Room No. 316A, C. R. 2706, Bank Street Road, Building, I. P. Estate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- New Delhi 110005 Delhi Pan: Aaacl9483H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Mayankpatwari, Adv & Sh. Akashojha, Adv Revenue By Sh. Gouranga Chandra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 68

held to be proper. In a similar case, the jurisdictional Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Fine Gujranwala Jewellers v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 151 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi - Trib.) [27-03-2023] discussing all the relevant precedence on the issue of cash deposit held as below: - “18. We should

Kamlesh Babubhai Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 794/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 794/SRT/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Kamlesh Babubhai Patel Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-5, Near Gujarati school, bhindiay, Vapi. Room no. 713, fortune deheri, umbergaon 396170. Taluka square-II, Daman Road, umbergaon. Dsit-valsad , Gujrat Chala

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

under: "....It is sufficient for us to refer to section 271(1)(a), which provides that a penalty may be imposed if the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income, and to section 2760 which provides that ... Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968) has held as under- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained, and the business income

Janta Land Promoters Pvt Ltd, Mohali vs. The Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

Girish Kumar & Sons v. Income- tax Officer reported in [2023] 155 taxmann.com 208 (Chandigarh - Trib.) Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Sahana o Jewellery Exports (P.) Ltd. reported in [2023] 157 taxmann.com 680 (Chennai - Trib.) 17. Per contra, the Ld. DR reiterated the earlier

Kalpanaben Vadilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 928/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, AR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 1ISection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68

reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income-tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income-tax Officer would be acting without jurisdiction

Rural Development Foundation, Anand vs. CPC, Bengaluru Juris. AO- the ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 927/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.927/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rural Development Cpc, Bengaluru बनाम/ Foundation Juris.Ao – The Ito Ward- V/S. Aitc, 2Nd Floor Exemption Narayan Complex Vadodara – 390 007 Nr.Shubh Laxmi Shopping Centre Station Road Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabtr 1090 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has 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 21/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Rural Development Foundation Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Juris Ao The Ito, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

various judicial forums. 8. The Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, in the case of Shri Panchmurti Education Society vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 171 taxmann.com 546 (Nagpur - Trib.) [21-01-2025], has categorically held that where a return of income is filed within the extended time limit

Kriteshwar Prasad Singh, Panvel vs. Asst/Dy CIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 268/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.268/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Kriteshwar Prasad Singh The Asst./Dy.Cit बनाम/ F.No.07, Lilac Bldg Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Godrej Sky Garden Vadodara – 390 007 Takka, Panvel – 410 206 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahlps 7784 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra C. Meha, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has 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 21/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-2023. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. 143 1 A The Ld Addl Jcit A Grossly Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Without Adjudicating The Preliminary Issue Raised Regarding The Violation Of Statutory Provision Of Sec 143 1 A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 The Act In The Form Of Kriteshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Asst/Dy Cit Asst. Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Meha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

intimation issued by CPC under section 143(1) of the Act is invalid in law and liable to be quashed. 7.2. In Income-tax Officer (Exemption) v. Camellia Educare Trust [2023] 152 taxmann.com 304 (Kolkata – Trib), it was held that in respect of any proposed adjustment, a prior intimation

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel, Kheda

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

ITA 834/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.834/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Acit Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai बनाम/ Dy./Asst.Commissioner Of Patel V/S. Income Tax (Anand Circle) I C/O. Mahakali Saw Mill Anand – 388 001 Mansarovar Marker Kamla Kamia, Kheda – 387 320 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cmmpp 6784 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mishal Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 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 27/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,64,04,151/-Made U/S 69C Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact The Assessee Failed To Substantiate The Expenditure Claimed With Supporting Evidences? Asst.Cit Vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Mishal Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

renders the appellate order unsustainable in law. The Hon’ble Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Enzen Global Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2022] 144 taxmann.com 2 (Bang. - Trib.) held that where the Commissioner (Appeals) admitted additional evidences submitted by the assessee to prove genuineness of trade payables

Satish Vishnu Thombare, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Varsha Prafulla Zende, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

which held that once an assessment is validly reopened, the previous under assessment is set aside and the Income-tax Officer has the jurisdiction and duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during the previous year. The Court held that the object of section

DCIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sri Uday Ghanshyam Naik, Mumbai

In the result, the cross

ITA 989/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 68

been established." worthiness has not been established." In the case of C.V Ravi v. Income In the case of C.V Ravi v. Income-tax Officer Assessing Officer tax Officer Assessing Officer held that said loan received by assessee was bogus and, held that said loan received by assessee was bogus

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed having being rendered infructuous

ITA 6461/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

gross violation of the authority vested on the Respondent, in so far as the personal hearing in the proceedings was conducted by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) and the order was passed by the Ld. CIT(E). 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Shri Powai Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Trust (Publice Charitable Trust), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in this respect are allowed

ITA 3187/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Powai Sthanakvasi Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Sangh Trust Ward 41(1)(4), (Public Charitable Trust) Mumbai Flat No. 104, Atlantis A Wing Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai - 400076 [Pan: Aatts2580C] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Kirit Sanghvi, Ca Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074570665(1), Dated 17.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.06.2021 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is In Respect Of Treatment Of Corpus Fund Donation Of Rs.1,74,01,475/- Received By The 2 Shri Powai Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Trust Ay 2018-19 Assessee During The Year As Income Chargeable To Tax Without Considering The Provisions Of Section 11(1)(D) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Powai Sthanakvasi Jain vs Income-tax Officer, Sangh Trust Ward 41(1)(4), (Public Charitable Trust) Mumbai Flat No. 104, Atlantis A Wing Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai - 400076 [PAN: AATTS2580C] Appellant