← 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

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 527/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

Assessment year 2014- 15 & AY 2016-17, date of order 18/12/2023. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai [hereinafter, the “Ld. AO”] passed under section 143(3), date of order 26/12/2016; under section 2 ITA 526 to 528/Mum /245

Mr. Hirjiparbat Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 526/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

Assessment year 2014- 15 & AY 2016-17, date of order 18/12/2023. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai [hereinafter, the "Ld. AO"] passed under section 143(3), date of order 26/12/2016; under section 154, date of order 31/10/2017

Raymix Concrete India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2771/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2771/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Raymix Concrete India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Tax, P.H.Road, Nerkundram, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai- 600 107 Chennai. [Pan: Aaecr6993A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lekha,C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha,C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 37

assessee, the calculation of the net tax payable is a process which is mostly arithmetical but generally time-consuming. If,there fore, the Income-tax Officer first draws up an order assessing the total income and indicating the adjustments to be made, directs the office to compute the tax payable ... fault can be found with the process, though it is only when both the computation sheets are signed or initialled by the Income-tax Officer that the process described in section143(3) will be complete. In this context, one may take notice of the fact that, initially, rule

Shree Gayatri Constructions and Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2862/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 250Section 40

raising the following grounds:- The National Faceless Appeal Center (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer 32(3)(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making disallowance under section

Osaka Alloys & Steel Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Jld, Jalandhar

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

ITA 60/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154oSection 2(24)Section 250Section 250oSection 80I

contention he relied on the following decisions: 10 I.T.A. No. 60/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “Brig. (Retd.) Jitendra Kumar Narang vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann.com 45 (Pune-Trib.)[28-05-2025] Arun Kumar Bose vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 173 taxmann.com 853 (Calcutta)[08-04- 2025] ILJIN Automotive

Kamlesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 147/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraι.Τ.Α. No.: 147/Pat/2025

Section 144Section 250

judgement of ITAT Surat Bench (SRT-Trib.) :(2024) 136 TLC 584 :(2025) 172 taxтапп.com 124 VALSAD JILLA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, IT Appeal Nos. 533 & 534 (SRT) of2024 Assessment Year 2018-19, Dated - 30-12-2024, (Copy

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

another, 203 ITR 456 the Supreme Court held:- "From a combined review of the judgments of this Court, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen assessment under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax 1961 only if on the basis of specific ... fresh information. Page 30 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

another, 203 ITR 456 the Supreme Court held:- "From a combined review of the judgments of this Court, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen assessment under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax 1961 only if on the basis of specific ... fresh information. Page 30 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 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

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Damayanti Ramachandran, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore

ITA 149/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.19/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.149/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.20/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.A

Section 45(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "सी" न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Damayanti Ramachandran, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 103/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 45(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘’सी’’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Chennai

ITA 3084/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 263

consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests 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 and the Income ... agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law". There is no dispute that under section 263 of the Act, the PCIT does have the power to set aside

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Chennai

ITA 3083/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 263

consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests 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 and the Income ... agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law". There is no dispute that under section 263 of the Act, the PCIT does have the power to set aside

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 9694/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Hasmukhbhai Raghubhai Goriya, Old Dhuva vs. Income Tax Officer, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 195/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.195/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukh Raghubhai Goriya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Morbi Village: Old Dhuva, Taluka: J.K. Chamber, National High Way-8A, Wakaner, District: Morbi- Near Ravi Residency Hotel, Lalpar, 363622 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awupg 3221 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

formation of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere presence. The powers of the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". The reopening

Mukesh Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Reopening The Assessment & Without Independent Application Of Mind. Thus, The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 & The Consequent Reassessment Order So Passed Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

issue in dispute. The ground No. 1.1 of the appeal is accordingly allowed.” Vayoo Nandan Finance Company (P.) Ltd vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1636 (Delhi - Trib.)[23-01-2024] 14 ITA No. 620/JP/2025 Mukesh Jain HUF vs. DCIT Section 68, read with section 147, of the Income

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

question has, thus, to be answered against the assessee." (emphasis supplied) It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Varia Pratik Engineering [2009] 120 TTJ 1 (Ahmedabad - ITAT) (30-09-2008] as under.- "41. The assessee has fairly conceded before ... pressing this ground.". Also, alternatively, it is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhishek Jain v. Income-tax officer, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi)/[2018] 405 ITR 1 (Delhi) [01-06-2018] that in terms of section

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a
Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10." We submit that in the case of Labh Chand Bohra vs. Income-tax Officer [2010] 189 Taxman 141 (Rajasthan) [ Refer compilation of case law page no 110-114], the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held as under ... PCIT vs Esspal International(P.) Ltd (2024) 722 (Rajasthan) 105-109 3. Labh Chand Bohra vs. Income-tax Officer [2010] 189 Taxman 110-114 141 (Rajasthan) the hon'ble Rajasthan High Court 4. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders honble Gujarat High court 115- 5. ITO Vs Amar Pratap Steels

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

Manasvi’s case (supra), that power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

Manasvi's case (supra), that power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Supreme Polymers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the results the appeal of the

ITA 189/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Sanjay Jain to cross-examine Shri Satish Monga in Gurgaon on 13.11.2018. Citing health problems, Shri Satish Monga expressed his inability to attend Income-tax Office for cross-examination, and he suggested the venue of cross-examination to be at his office in Gurgaon. However, on 10.12.2018, Shri Sanjay Jain ... 153C of the Act for making the additions. As per the ratio of the judgement in the case of Tirupati Construction Company v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 176 (Rajasthan)/[2024] 465 ITR 611 (Rajasthan) (21-03 2024], collection after search of further additional details relating to search would