← 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

Rajeswar Thakur, Bhawanipatna vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Sambalpur

ITA 144/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.143 & 144/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2014-2015) Rajeswar Thakur Pardeshpada, Near Balaji Temple Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi-766001 Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur Pan No. :Aaspt 7155 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 27.12.2024 For Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2014-2015.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Rao B, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 288A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जार्ज माथन, न्यायिक सदस्य

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

cover the case of the assessee. 5. With regard to rely of the Ld. DR on the case law of N Govindaraju Vs. Income-tax Officer [2015] 60 taxmann.com 333 decided by the honorable High Court of Karnataka, it is submitted that the honorable High Court also emphasized that while ... makes it invalid hence, the argument of the Ld. DR on the basis of case law of N Govindaraju Vs. Income-tax Officer [2015] 60 taxmann.com 333 does not have any value in the eyes of law. It will also be worthwhile to mention here that judgment of jurisdictional Rajasthan

Metro Stone Crusher Private Limited, Bhiwani, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 897/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sahil, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 897/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2017-18] Metro Stone Crusher Pvt Ltd Vs. The Income-tax Officer Baganwala Zone, Khanak Tosham Ward – 17(1) Haryana New Delhi PAN: AAFCM 4794 H (Appellant) Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sahil, CA Department By : Shri

Shah Rakesh Bhikhabhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

material and he would be entitled to take that new material into account if the material, which was not available to the Income-Tax Officer when he made the assessment could thus be taken into consideration by the Commissioner after holding an enquiry, there is no reason why the material ... therefore order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. As stated above that the Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order

Ankur Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ankur Dealcom Private Limited Pcit, Room No. 302 & 303, Sikkim Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Commerce House, 4/1, Middleton Chowringhee Square, Vs. Street, Kolkata-700071, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca2847F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

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

Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Ors HUF, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ashok Kumar Agarwal & Ors Huf Acit, Circle 34, C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2 Nd 110, Shanti Pally, 7 Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Eastern Metropolitian By Pass, Street, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeha8352F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

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

Mallya Real Estates P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

ITA 6158/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipt are of an assessable nature". 17. In the instant case, the creditworthiness of the lenders

Sri Ganessh Chit Fund, Ganjam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Berhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 58/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sri Ganesh Chit Fund Hanuman Bazar, Gundalavari Ito, Ward-2, Berhampur Street Brahmapur Ganjam- Odisha Vs. 760002, Orissa (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aawfs5606G Assessee By : Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao B, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271A

reads as follows: - “From Sri Ganesh Chit Fund Gundalavari Street, Hanuman Bazar, Berhampur(Gm), Odisha PAN-AAWFS5606G Asst. Yr.-2017-2018 To. The Income-Tax officer, Ward-2, Berhampur (Gm) Sub: Requesting for dropping of penalty U/S 270A of I.T. Act, 1961. Payment of Tax Vide Challan No-00001, Dated

Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2069/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 69C

additions on account of alleged bogus purchases was rightly restricted to 5 per cent. 13. In the case of Vijay Trading Co. vs. Income-tax Officer [2016] 76 taxmann.com 366 (Gujarat) / [2016] 388 ITR 377 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that in respect of bogus purchases, only profit element

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hospet vs. Gayatri Pattina Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Hospet

ITA 1078/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Balram R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

derived from working or circulating capital.” 9.10 Further, the Apex Court in the case of Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Reported in (SC) :(2001) 251 ITR 522 had again reiterated by relying on its own judgment delivered in the case of Karnataka State ... 18/2015 dated 02/11/2015. 9.12 The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. v. Income-tax officer Ward-V, Tumkur reported in [2015] 230 Taxman 309 had also held as under- “7. The word 'attributable' used in the said section

Suresh Trilotkar, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4487/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 270Section 270A

MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 4487/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suresh Trilotkar Vs. Income-Tax Officer- 1/608, Mohan Naik 42(3)(4) Grihaniram Santha,V. Y. Kautilya Bhavan, Dahiwalkar Marg, Dadar Bandra Kurla Maharashtra - 400014 Complex, PAN:ADUPT0932H Bandra(East

ACIT 531, Mumbai vs. Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

orders in ITA No.1451, 1452 & 1484/Mum/2024 and CO 87/Mum/2024 emanated from the orders of the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [in short, the “Ld. AO”] passed under section 144 read with section 263 read with section 144B

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1452/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

orders in ITA No.1451, 1452 & 1484/Mum/2024 and CO 87/Mum/2024 emanated from the orders of the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [in short, the “Ld. AO”] passed under section 144 read with section 263 read with section 144B

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Ncome Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1451/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

orders in ITA No.1451, 1452 & 1484/Mum/2024 and CO 87/Mum/2024 emanated from the orders of the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [in short, the “Ld. AO”] passed under section 144 read with section 263 read with section 144B

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

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

ITA 977/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

orders in ITA No.1451, 1452 & 1484/Mum/2024 and CO 87/Mum/2024 emanated from the orders of the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [in short, the “Ld. AO”] passed under section 144 read with section 263 read with section 144B

Income Tax Officer, Morbi vs. Pravinbhai Shivlalbhai Ghodasara, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee, is also dismissed

ITA 935/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.935/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Income-Tax Officer Ward-1, Vs. Pravinbhai Shivlalbhai Aayakar Vibhag, J K Chamber, Nh Ghodasara 8A, At- Lalpar, Raj Bank Street, Morbi - 363642 Kalika Plot, Morbi - 363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Askpg8977A (Assessee) (Respondent) Co No.12/Rjt/2025 (A/O Ita No.935/Rjt/2024) Assessment Year: (2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 69

ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.935/RJT/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Vs. Pravinbhai Shivlalbhai Aayakar Vibhag, J K Chamber, NH Ghodasara 8A, At- Lalpar, Raj Bank Street, Morbi - 363642 Kalika Plot, Morbi - 363642 "थायीलेखासं ... जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ASKPG8977A (Assessee) (Respondent) CO No.12/RJT/2025 (a/o ITA No.935/RJT/2024) Assessment Year: (2015-16) Pravinbhai Shivlalbhai Ghodasara Vs. Income-tax Officer Ward- Raj Bank Street, 1, Kalika Plot, Aayakar Vibhag, J K Morbi - 363642 Chamber, NH 8A, At- Lalpar, Morbi - 363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ASKPG8977A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee

Rtv International, Solan vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 131/CHANDI/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Rtv Vision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit बनाम/ (Successor Of M/S Rtv International) Shimla. Plot No.G-97, Site-5, Upsidc Vs. Kasna Industrial Area, Greater Noida "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccr-4395-J / Aalfr-8106-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sameer Kapoor- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Assailing Proposed Revision Of The Order U/S 263 As Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla (Pr. Cit) On 22-03-2019 Has Come Up For Hearing Pursuant To The Order Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla In Ita No.01 Of 2025 Dated 28-05-2025. The Directions Of Hon’Ble Court Are As Under: - 3. In The Given Facts & Circumstances, We Deem It Appropriate To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Set Aside Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

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

S 355 Tharamangalam Paccs, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 860/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

fact-finding authority, that reads thus : S 355 Tharamangalam PACCS :: 5 :: "We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority ... case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee?" 4. In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question

Income Tax Officer, Wanaparthy Block vs. Tamilnadu Special Police Employees Cooperative, Tsp Camp

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:363/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Tamilnadu Special Police Non-Corporate Ward -7(3), Vs. Employees Cooperative, Chennai – 600 034. Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. [Pan:Aafat-0366-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Dated 11.10.2024. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days In Appeal Filed By The Revenue, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Revenue & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Revenue In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus

For Appellant: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A
Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 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 ... 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

Alfha Coach Builders, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 33/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 32 & 33/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Alfha Coach Builders, The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.596’3, Andan Kovil East, Vs. Ward -1, Pudhur, Covai Road, Karur. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaofa-8970-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its decision in the case of Conceria International (P.) Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer [2003] 157 taxmann.com 335 (Madras). The Hon'ble High Court of Madras relying on the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court