← 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

Brightmoon Securities Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Brightmoon Securities Private Ito, Ward 25(1) Limited Aaykar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Gariahat Road (South) Advocates, 2 Garstin Place, 2 Nd Room No.1/9, 1St Floor, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Kolkata-700053, Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcb7280E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Indrani Sikder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3284/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Nawkiran Plymers Pvt. Ltd.(Amalgamated With Nawkiran Polychem Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3105/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Deep Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pampa Ray, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151ASection 68

Mahimud SK Vs ITO ITA No. 2230 & 2229/Kol/2024 order dated 4.3.2025. Similarly, the Telangana High Court in case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 156 taxmann.com 178 (TELANGANA)/[2023] 295 Taxman 652 (TELANGANA)[14-09-2023], Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Triton Overseas ... Samp Furniture (P.) Ltd. ITR 187 (Bombay)[05-08-2024]. ITA No. 3105/KOL/2025 Nawkiran Plymers Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 477 5.1. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions , I quash the assessment framed by the AO/ NFAC. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Ashoke Sen, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3021/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ashoke Sen Ito, Ward 50(1) Lawgical Consultants, 29D, Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Bentick Street, Unit-A, B &C, Maniktala Civic Centre, Kolkata- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001, 700054, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ayfps8468K Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2727/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Ratan Kumar Goel &For Respondent: Shri Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

mechanical manner. 7.2. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Income-tax Officer vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC)[30-03-1976], wherein it has been held that where the sanction is required ... this court as it suggests that the decision has been taken in a mechanical manner. Even if the reasoning set out by the Income-tax Officer was to be agreed upon, the least which is expected is that an appropriate endorsement is made in this behalf setting out brief reasons

Excel Financial Consultants (P) Limited, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2608/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pampa Ray, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

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

Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2576/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 158Section 250

Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 310, Kamalalaya Centre, Dharamtala SO 156A, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata - 700013 [PAN: AACCG2660H] ……..…...……………....Appellant vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069 ……..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, CA Department

Sagar Bothra, Howrah vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2197/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sagar Bothra Nfac C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & The National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2 Nd Floor, E- Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Vs. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700013, Wb Stadium, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb4505H Assessee By : Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pampa Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Deep Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pampa Ray, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151ASection 68

Mahimud SK Vs ITO ITA No. 2230 & 2229/Kol/2024 order dated 4.3.2025. Similarly, the Telangana High Court in case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 156 taxmann.com 178 (TELANGANA)/[2023] 295 Taxman 652 (TELANGANA)[14-09-2023], Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Triton Overseas ... Union of India [2023] 156 taxmann.com 318 (Calcutta)[13-09-2023], Samp Furniture (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 477 ITR 187 (Bombay)[05-08-2024]. 6.1. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions , I quash the assessment framed by the AO/ NFAC. 7. In the result, the appeal

Jiya Exim Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

ITA 2142/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250

assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Capital Broadways (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (supra), wherein the Hon'ble court has held as under

Quetzal Buildtech Private Limited, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Haryana

ITA 6409/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6409/Del/2025 Assessment

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate vs. Shivai Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income-tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause." 14. In the above judgment, Hon'ble Court has held that filing of audit report

Amit Goyal HUF, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1159/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Amit Goyal Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M-59, Greater Kailash-Ii, Ward 30(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi (Pan: Aalha3711R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

order dated 11.01.2023without any variation. The Id. counsel has also sufficiently distinguished the facts of the case of Sangeeta Devi Jhunjhunwala v. Income-tax Officer ITA No.747/Del/2022/[2023] 152 taxmann.com 348/202 ITD 165(Delhi - Trib.) relied by the Ld.CIT(A) in the case of HPC Biosciences Ltd. scrip

Vicky Navani, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jabalpur, Ward ))

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

Jurisdictional HC in the case of [1999] 106 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 460 (MP) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH Bharat Construction Co. v. Income-tax Officer M.P. NO. 1272 OF 1989 dated DECEMBER 1, 1998, which has been followed by the Hon'ble Allahabad HC in the case of M/s. Bhola

Sarfarazkhan Sarvarkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2016/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69A

charging section would not invalidate the addition and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Rajmeet Singh v. Income-tax Officer (2024) 160 taxmann.com 83, the CIT(Appeals) observed that income otherwise taxable cannot escape assessment merely due to an incorrect reference to a provision

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

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

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate
Section 253(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

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

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

stated in the following terms : " The power to impose penalty under section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act; it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about the existence of conditions specified in clause ... before the proceedings are concluded. The proceeding to levy penalty has, however, not to be commenced by the Income-tax Officer before the completion of the assessment proceedings by the Income-tax Officer. Satisfaction before conclusion of the proceeding under the Act, and not the issue of a notice

Mckinsey & Company India LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1028/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

Year: 2016-17] McKinsey & Company India LLP, Additional / Joint / S-405 (Lower Ground Floor), Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Greater Kailash-II, Vs Income Tax, Income-tax Officer, New Delhi-110048. National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi-110002. PAN- AAXFM1434F Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date ... Tribunal'), against the final assessment order dated 30 June 2021 passed by the Additional / Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Centre, New Delhi ('learned AO') for AY 2016-17. A copy of acknowledgement for appeal filed along with additional grounds of appeal is enclosed

Hollis Vitrified Private Limited, Morbi, Gujarat, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

taxmann.com (Calcutta), the Hon'ble High Court held that even under non- amended provision of Section 68, an Income-tax Officer was not precluded from making an inquiry about true nature and source of sum found credited in books of assessee, even if same was credited as receipt of share ... Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 83 (SC) that if due to an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Hon'ble Supreme Court

Mkf International, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7726/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmkf International Dcit Circle 17(1), 1903/1905, Aarus Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Wallace Fortuna, Shivdas Vs. Bkc, Mumbai – Chapsi Marg, Opp-Fazlani 400 051 School, Chinchbunder Ho, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Abhfm5244N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah A/W Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

Gazal Caterers. The learned AR also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Nova Medicare v. Income-tax Officer reported in [2023] 459 ITR 477. 13. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the Assessing Officer as well ... doubts about the ultimate source in the hands of the partner. 25. The Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Nova Medicare v. Income-tax Officer (459 ITR 477) has observed: 14. After thorough consideration of all relevant aspects, we are of the view that issue raised in this appeal

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, C.R. Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 609/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B': NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA